Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report on the Federal Workforce

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I:  Preface

Laws

Guidance for the Process

Goal

Part II: Executive Summary

Equal Employment Opportunity Commitment Indicators

Workforce Characteristics

Processing of Employment Discrimination Complaints

Part III:  Introduction

Overview

Scope

Limitations

Part IV: Demonstrated Commitment to Equal Employment Opportunities

Part V: Composition of the Federal Workforce

Part VI: Complaint Processing

Overview

Pre-Complaints/Informal Complaints

Timely Completed Counselings

Pre-Complaint ADR Acceptances and Resolutions

Formal Complaints

Formal Complaints Filed

Processing Time for Complaint Closures

Top Bases and Issues (Formal Complaints)

Investigations

Completed Investigations

Completed Investigations: Costs and Timeliness

Formal Complaint Closures and Compliance

Formal Complaint Closures and Processing Time

Complaint Closures by Statute

ADR (Formal Complaint Stage)

Merit Decisions and Processing Time

Monetary Benefits Awarded (Formal Complaint Closures)

Part VII: Summary & Conclusions

APPENDIX I. Glossary

APPENDIX II. Workforce (A) Tables

APPENDIX III. Complaint Processing (B) Tables

APPENDIX IV. Participation Rate of Persons with Targeted Disabilities (Infographic)

APPENDIX V. Demographics of the Federal Government SES in FY 2018 (Infographic)

APPENDIX VI. Total Complaints by Race, FY2018 (Infographic)

APPENDIX VII. Top 5 Bases for Complaints Filed, FY2018 (Infographic)

APPENDIX VIII. Top 5 Bases for Harassment Complaints, FY2018 (Infographic)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5. 1. Participation across GS Pay Bands by Race/National Origin and Sex, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Table 5. 2. Participation of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities: Top Five Independent Agencies and Subcomponents (500+ Employees), FY 2018

Table 5. 3. Participation of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Governmentwide by Disability Type (Percentage of Total Workforce), FY 2003 and FY 2018

Table 5. 4. Participation of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in GS-Grade Ranges and the Senior Executive Service, FY 2018

Table 6. 1. Agencies with the highest rate of timely completed counselings* (B2)

Table 6. 2. Distribution of benefits provided in all pre-complaint settlements, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B3, B6)

Table 6. 3. Agencies with the Lowest Rates of Complaints Filed for FY 2018 (B3)

Table 6. 4. Agencies with the Lowest Rate of Complainants* for FY2018 (B1)

Table 6. 5. Agencies with the Shortest Processing Days for FY 2018 (B7)

Table 6. 6. Top Five Bases in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2018 (B8)

Table 6. 7. Top Five Issues in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2018 (B8)

Table 6. 8. Top agencies for timely completed investigations* (B7)

Table 6. 9. Rate of findings of discrimination, FY 2013-FY 2018 (B15)

Table 6. 10. Monetary benefits awarded during complaint process, FY 2012-FY 2018 (B21)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4. 1. Federal agencies' demonstrated commitment to equal employment opportunities

Figure 5. 1. Hispanic/Latino governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 2. White governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 3. Black/African American governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 4. Asian governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 5. American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 6. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) governmentwide participation, FY 2018

Figure 5. 7. Two or More Races governmentwide participation, FY 2018

Figure 5. 8. Hispanic/Latino governmentwide and senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

Figure 5. 9. White governmentwide and senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

Figure 5. 10. Black/African American governmentwide senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

Figure 5. 11. Asian governmentwide and senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

Figure 5. 12. American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) governmentwide and senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

Figure 5. 13. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) governmentwide and Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2018

Figure 5. 14. Two or More Races governmentwide and Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2018

Figure 5. 15. Participation of individuals with targeted disabilities governmentwide by disability type (Percentage of total workforce), FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 16. Participation of individuals with disabilities as a percentage of General Schedule (GS) pay bands and Senior Executive Service (SES), FY 2018

Figure 6. 1. Distribution of ADR outcomes: Offers, rejections, and acceptances (B4)

Figure 6. 2. Distribution of ADR pre-complaint resolutions (informal phase) (B5)

Figure 6. 3. Distribution of pre-complaint outcomes (B3)

Figure 6. 4. Governmentwide Five-Year Trend for Number of Complaints Filed with 2003 Trendline (B3)

Figure 6. 5. Governmentwide Average Processing Time for Complaint Closures(B7)

Figure 6. 6. Total Completed Investigations, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B9)

Figure 6. 7. Average Processing Days of all completed investigations, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B9)

Figure 6. 8. Total and Average Cost of Completed Investigations, FY 2013-FY2018 (B9)

Figure 6. 9. Average Processing Days for all complaint closures, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B10)

Figure 6. 10. Complaint closures by statute, FY 2017 (B22)

Figure 6. 11. ADR complaint closures acceptance/participation rate, FY 2013-FY 2017 (B19)

Figure 6. 12. ADR complaint resolutions by type (B20)

Figure 6. 13. Average Processing Days for all final agency decisions, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B16, B17)

Figure 6. 14. Average Processing Days for final orders fully implementing AJ decisions, FY 2013-FY 2018 (B15, B17)

Part I:  Preface

Laws

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information.  It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.  The EEOC’s responsibilities extend not only to private employers, but also to agencies in the Federal Government.  The federal anti-discrimination laws applicable to federal government employment are as follows:

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work performed under similar conditions;

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin;

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of age (40 years and older);

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees and applicants with disabilities and requires that reasonable accommodations be provided (it applies the same standards as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability by private and state or local government employers);

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978 Amendment to Title VII of Civil Rights Act), which prohibits treating a woman unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth; and

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information, including family medical history.

Guidance for the Process

Title VII grants the EEOC authority to issue rules, regulations, and instructions, as necessary, to enforce the above-listed EEO laws within the Federal Government and requires the EEOC to annually review federal agency EEO plans and report on their progress.  The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the Federal Government's equal employment opportunity program as a function of these authorities and obligations.  The EEOC assures federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations, provides technical assistance to federal agencies concerning EEO complaint adjudication, monitors and evaluates federal agencies' affirmative employment programs, develops and distributes federal sector educational materials, and conducts training for stakeholders. The EEOC furthermore provides guidance and assistance to its Administrative Judges (AJs) – who conduct hearings on federal sector EEO complaints -- and adjudicates appeals from administrative decisions made by federal agencies on EEO complaints.  The objective of this report is to promote equal employment opportunity by providing federal agencies and Congress with an overview of the state of federal sector EEO.

Goal

This fiscal year (FY) 2018 report on federal sector EEO, submitted to the President and Congress, presents a summary of select EEO program activities of 268 federal agencies and subcomponents.  Specifically, the EEOC intends this report to serve as a resource for agencies’ proactive prevention of employment discrimination by reporting data that contributes to such a discussion.  This report provides vital information to agencies as they strive to become model employers. Increasing awareness of challenges in the Federal Government may better equip the EEOC and federal agencies to successfully prevent EEO violations from occurring.

Report Overview

The Federal Government operates on an October 1 to September 30 fiscal year, and so this report on FY 2018 activities covers the period from October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018.  The report contains selected information to measure agencies’ progress toward achieving a model EEO program, including an analysis of both workforce demographics and statistics about EEO complaint processing.  Federal agencies contributed to the content of this report.  The EEOC thanks all agencies that provided comments and suggestions, and those that submitted timely and accurate EEO program analysis and complaint processing data.  Finally, the EEOC extends a special thanks to the Office of Personnel Management for sharing workforce data from its Enterprise Human Resources Integration.

Part II: Executive Summary

This report aims to serve as an informative overview of underlying trends across three broad areas of opportunities for proactive prevention of unlawful employment discrimination: EEO commitment indicators, workforce characteristics, and complaint processing.  Below are highlights from the fiscal year 2018 Annual Report within each of these components:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commitment Indicators

• In FY 2018, 88.6% of agencies evaluated managers and supervisors on commitment to EEO.
• 86.6% of agencies prominently posted their reasonable accommodation procedures for individuals with disabilities. 
• 77.6% of agencies reported that their senior managers participate in the barrier analysis process.
• 63.7% of agencies reported that the immediate supervisor of the EEO Director was the agency head.

Workforce Characteristics

• Governmentwide, participation rates for 11 out of the 14 race-by-sex groups were higher than their rates in the 2010 civilian labor force (CLF). The exceptions were Hispanic/Latina females (4.1% vs. 4.8% in the CLF), White males (35.1% vs. 38.3% in the CLF), and White females (24.1% vs. 34.0% in the CLF). 
• White males continue to comprise most of the Senior Executive Service (55.1% of those in Senior Executive Service positions in 2018).
• In the General Schedule (GS) pay system, most race-by-sex groups participate at higher rates in the lower pay grades relative to their participation in the higher pay grades. The exceptions to this are White males and Asians of both sexes.
• The overall participation rate of individuals with targeted disabilities increased from 1.05% in FY 2003[1] to 1.61% in FY 2018.  This was driven by increases in the participation rates of individuals with significant psychiatric disorders, serious difficulty hearing, and serious difficulty seeing.
• More federal agencies are meeting the 2% goal for the participation rate of individuals with targeted disabilities, with 10 out of 28 independent agencies, 10 out of 19 cabinet departments, and 37 out of 89 subcomponents of cabinet departments meeting the 2% goal.[2]

Processing of Employment Discrimination Complaints

There were 37,042 counselings completed during FY 2018, with an ADR offer rate of 86.83%, an ADR acceptance rate of 61.33%, and an ADR resolution rate of 64.44%. 

• 42.10% of completed counselings resulted in a formal complaint filing.
• Of the 15,578 formal complaints filed in FY 2018, the basis most frequently alleged was reprisal/retaliation (8,185), followed by age (4,851) and physical disability (4,666).
• It took investigators, on average, 189 days to complete investigations during FY 2018, down 2.1% from the previous year.  The average cost of investigations was $3,682.
• Overall, the number of completed investigations has increased since last year, up from 12,082 completed investigations in 2017 to 12,248 completed investigations in 2018.  This represents the highest number of completed investigations over the last five fiscal years.
• The average monetary pre-complaint settlement was $3,996 per settlement, with a total governmentwide settlement pay-out of roughly $3.6 million, down from 5.1 million in FY17
• The total number of findings of discrimination, including AJ decisions and final agency decisions, have decreased significantly from FY 2017, from 158 to 139.
• In FY 2018, the monetary benefits obtained through settlements and awarded for findings of discrimination at the complaint stage, including AJ decisions and final agency decisions, amount to over $52 million, a 4.8% decrease from FY 2017.  

Overall, federal agencies have demonstrated commitment to equal employment opportunity.  In preparing this report, the EEOC observed high levels of compliance with MD-715 requirements, subtle but consistently increased racial, ethnic, gender, and disability status diversity, and an increase in discrimination complaints. Further, the monetary benefits paid out for complaint-stage settlements and findings of discrimination have declined.  However, more work is needed to promote diversity at the upper GS-levels.

Part III:  Introduction

Overview

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States.  With over 2.8 million[3] employees, it is important that the federal sector strives to serve as a model employer by promoting equal employment opportunity and an inclusive work culture.  Despite the significant progress in all areas of equal employment opportunity, workforce data suggests that some inequities persist in the federal sector. 

Complaint data also provides insight into the state of the Federal Government.  During fiscal year 2018, 15,578 federal sector complaints of discrimination were filed.  While complaints have steadily declined since 2010, down from 17,583, discrimination complaints have remained costly, with federal agencies spending $3.6 million on pre-complaint settlements, $45.1 million on EEO complaint investigations, and $52.3 million in monetary benefits for findings of discrimination and complaint-stage settlements.  Furthermore, while the Federal Government has experienced increased diversity since the introduction of Management Directive 715 in 2003, diverse representation at higher GS-levels remains unrealized. 

This report summarizes the state of federal sector EEO while providing trend analyses of key EEO indicators.  The information presented can help Congress, stakeholder agencies, and EEOC leadership monitor governmentwide EEO activity and provide benchmarks for measuring federal agencies.  Those interested in proactive prevention should find this report a valuable resource for identifying existing and emerging challenges in federal sector EEO[4].

The data presented in this report was drawn from the following sources:

• Workforce and EEO Commitment data from 201 federal agencies and subcomponents filing FY 2018 Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Reports (MD-715)
• EEO complaint data from 268 federal agencies and subcomponents filing FY 2018 Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints reports (Form 462)

Scope

The goal of this report is to promote awareness of the accomplishments and challenges in federal sector EEO while providing benchmarks against which individual agencies can gauge their performance.  As such, data is reported in the following manner:

• Governmentwide aggregate data are reported.  Detailed data for individual agencies can be found in the online appendices at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/index.cfm;
• 5-year trends are presented where appropriate;
• As is often done in reports on EEO, federal workforce data is compared to the 2010 civilian labor force (CLF) to see how the Federal Government compares to other employers;
• Because 2003 was a pivotal milestone year due to the introduction of Management Directive 715, governmentwide changes in EEO since 2003 are highlighted; and
• Top performing agencies are recognized on select EEO indicators.

Using this data, Part IV reports on agencies’ demonstrated commitment to EEO, including governmentwide compliance with MD-715 guidance.  Part V reports on workforce characteristics, describing the governmentwide participation rates of EEO groups.  Part VI reports on EEO complaint activity, describing activity at different stages of the complaint process, including pre-complaint activity, complaint activity, and findings.  We conclude by highlighting key findings in this report and the implications thereof.

Limitations

Readers should exercise caution when comparing current data to data from prior years.  Effective January 1, 2006, OPM required federal agencies to collect ethnicity and race information for accessions on a revised version of Standard Form 181 (Ethnicity and Race Identification).  Accordingly, since 2006, the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) has contained data on persons who are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) or who are of Two or More Races. Thus, separate data on these groups is contained in this Report for recent years.  Before 2006, however, data on Asians included Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders, and there was no data reported on persons of Two or More Races.

Part IV: Demonstrated Commitment to Equal Employment Opportunities

There is reason to believe that organizational commitment to equal employment opportunities (EEO) will prevent employment discrimination.  Past annual reports have focused on EEO programs’ legal compliance, such as whether any staff at an agency received training and agency timeliness in submitting Form 462 and the MD-715 reports.  The 2018 report’s measures continue to assess compliance with MD-715 and 29 CFR § 1614 but focus on aspects that more directly affect federal employees.

To assess the Federal Government’s commitment to EEO, this report examined four measures related to the prevention of discrimination found in Part G of EEOC Form 715-02, the Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.  Agencies that were required to complete that form answered yes, no, or not applicable to the following questions related to agencies’ commitment to EEO[5]:

• Do all managers and supervisors have an element in their performance appraisal that evaluates their commitment to agency EEO policies and principles and their participation in the EEO program? (Question C.3.a)
• Does the agency prominently post the following information throughout the workplace and on its public website: Reasonable accommodation procedures? (Question A.2.b.3)
• Do senior managers participate in the barrier analysis process? (Question B.6.b)
• Is the agency head the immediate supervisor of the person (“EEO Director”) who has day-to-day control over the EEO office? (Question B.1.a)

These questions are similar to, but slightly reworded from the questions asked in previous years’ Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Reports.  As in previous years, agencies answering yes were considered to be demonstrating commitment to EEO. 

As seen in Figure 4.1, most reporting agencies and subcomponents demonstrated commitment on these measures, but to varying degrees.  However, the percentage of agencies demonstrating commitment on these measures decreased from that reported in FY 2017.[6]  In FY 2018, 88.6% of agencies evaluated managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO, and at 77.6% of agencies, senior managers participated in the barrier analysis process.  Leadership’s involvement in promoting EEO is crucial to creating a workplace culture that does not tolerate discrimination.  We commend the majority of agencies who reported succeeding in these measures.

Another preventative measure that the vast majority of agencies followed was making reasonable accommodations procedures readily available and accessible.  This measure, followed by 86.6% of federal agencies, is crucial to attract and retain people with disabilities within the federal workforce.

Figure 4. 1 Federal agencies' demonstrated commitment to equal employment opportunities

Although agencies commonly demonstrated EEO commitment on the measures mentioned above, they did not score as highly on one: having the agency head be the immediate supervisor of the EEO Director. At over one-third (36.3%) of reporting agencies, the agency head was not the EEO Director’s immediate supervisor.  This deficiency in terms of organizational structure is troubling.  Regulations found in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(4) and further described in MD-110 mandate that the EEO Director report directly to the agency head.[7]  Not including the EEO Director among senior management implies that the agency does not consider EEO a priority.  Furthermore, in technical assistance visits and program evaluations, EEOC has found that EEO Directors sometimes report to the heads of Human Resources, who often participate in the agency’s defense to claims of discrimination.  The resulting conflict of interest may cause employees to doubt the neutrality of the EEO process, and they may hesitate to seek EEO counseling; this can result in unchecked discriminatory conduct.  With the enactment of the Elijah J. Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2020, the requirement that the head of each federal agency’s EEO Program report to the head of the agency is now law.  All non-compliant agencies must remedy this issue.

Part V: Composition of the Federal Workforce

Equality of opportunity to participate and advance in the federal workforce is paramount to achieving the Federal Government’s goal of becoming a model employer.  Below, this report describes participation rates in the Federal Government by race/national origin (RNO), gender, and targeted disability^[8] for the government overall, for General Schedule (GS) pay grade bands, and for senior level pay positions.  Comparing overall participation rates to their availability in the civilian labor force provides one means of evaluating the government’s progress toward equal opportunity.  To approximate opportunities to participate in higher ranks, the report compares participation rates in more senior grades to participation rates governmentwide and to participation rates in lower grades within the Federal Government.  Targeted disability numbers are compared to goals for their participation in the federal workforce.  While some areas reveal improvement since the implementation of MD-715 in FY 2003, work remains before the Federal Government may be considered a model employer.

Participation in the Federal Workforce by Race/National Origin and Sex.  In the Federal Government in FY 2018, participation rates for 11 out of 14 RNO by sex groups were higher than their rates in the 2010 civilian labor force (CLF; see Figures 5.1 through 5.7 and Appendix II).  The exceptions were Hispanic/Latina females (4.1% vs. 4.8% in the CLF), White males (35.1% vs. 38.3% in the CLF), and White females (24.1% vs. 34.0% in the CLF).  Although the Hispanic/Latina female participation rate was lower than the CLF, this participation rate increased from 2003 when Latinas held 2.8% of federal jobs. 

Conversely, the participation rates of Whites of both genders decreased between 2003 and 2018, with the White male participation rate dropping approximately 6% and the White female participation rate dropping approximately 1%. For all other racial and gender groups for which we have data from 2003 (Hispanic/Latino males, African American/Black males and females, Asian males and females, and American Indian/Alaska Native males and females), participation rates increased between 2003 and 2018.  For most of these groups, this maintained the trend of participating in the Federal Government at rates above their 2010 CLF participation rate.  Hispanic/Latino males’ FY 2018 federal participation rate (5.5%) exceeded their CLF participation rate (5.2%) for the second year in a row.

Participation data specific to Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders and people of Two or More Races were not available in 2003.  However, when compared to their 2010 CLF participation, males and females from each of these racial groups had higher than expected participation rates in the Federal Government in 2018. 

Figure 5. 1. Hispanic/Latino governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

 

Figure 5. 2. White governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 3. Black/African American governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

 

Figure 5. 4. Asian governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 5. American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) governmentwide participation, FY 2003 and FY 2018

Figure 5. 6. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) governmentwide participation, FY 2018

 

 

Figure 5. 7. Two or More Races governmentwide participation, FY 2018

Participation in Senior Positions by Race/National Origin and Sex.  Senior leaders in the workplace not only receive higher pay but have the power to make business decisions such as hiring, promotions, and firing that affect the diversity of the workforce.  A premier category of senior leaders in the Federal Government is the Senior Executive Service (SES) which was created to “...ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.”^[9]  This section highlights FY 2018 participation in the SES compared to FY 2003 participation in senior level pay positions.^[10]

Senior level pay positions in the Federal Government, specifically SES positions continued to be dominated by White males (55.1% of those in the SES in 2018); however, most other RNO by sex groups for which there is 2003 data made gains in 2018 relative to their 2003 senior level participation rates (See Figures 5.8 through 5.14 and Appendix II).  The exception was Hispanic/Latino males (2.5% of senior level pay in 2003 vs. 2.4% of SES in 2018).  In 2018, only White males and Asian males participated in the SES at rates higher than their governmentwide participation rates.  White females (24.0%) participated in the SES at a rate approaching their governmentwide participation rate, but all other RNO by sex groups participated in the SES at rates lower than their governmentwide participation rates.

Asian women’s 2018 SES participation rate (2.2%) was more than double their 2003 senior level pay participation rate (0.8%).  In 2018, Black women (5.0% vs. 2.6%) and American Indian/Alaska Native women (0.40% vs. 0.21%) participated in the SES at approximately twice their 2003 senior level pay participation rates.  Hispanic/Latina women (1.2% vs. 0.9%) and White women (24.0% vs. 20.7%) also increased their participation in senior positions. 

Overall, women have made great gains in senior level positions.  In 2003, females held approximately one-fourth of senior pay level jobs (25.2%).  By 2018, women held 33.0% of SES positions.  However, most women participated in SES at levels far below their governmentwide participation rates in 2018.  This applied to Hispanic/Latina women (1.2% of those in SES vs. 4.1% of the entire government), Black women (5.0% vs. 11.7%), Asian women (2.2% vs. 3.1%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander women (0.06% vs. 0.27%), American Indian/Alaska Native women (0.40% vs. 0.89%), and women of Two or More Races (0.14% vs. 1.04%).

Although in 2018, White men participated in SES at a lower rate than they did in senior level pay positions in 2003, men of most other races saw increases between 2003 and 2018.  These increases, however, were usually smaller than those of the women of those races.  The 2018 SES participation rate of American Indian/Alaska Native men increased to 0.70% in 2018 as compared to 0.54% of senior pay positions in 2003.  Black men’s SES rate increased to 4.6% as compared to 4.2% of senior pay positions in 2003.   For Asian men, the rate increased by a wider margin, from 2.2% of senior pay positions in 2003 to 4.0% of SES in 2018.  Conversely, Hispanic/Latino men’s rate slightly decreased between 2003 and 2018.

The SES participation rates of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and people of Two or More Races were far below their governmentwide participation rates in FY 2018 (Senior level pay participation data specific to Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders and people of Two or More Races were not available in 2003).  For example, male Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders participated governmentwide at 0.31%, but only represented 0.09% of people in the SES.  Males of Two or More Races made up 0.11% of those in the SES, but they composed 0.80% of the federal workforce.  Efforts should be made to increase the SES participation of groups with lower than expected participation based on their participation rates governmentwide.

Figure 5. 8. Hispanic/Latino governmentwide and senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

 

Figure 5. 9. White governmentwide and senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

Figure 5. 10. Black/African American governmentwide senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

 

Figure 5. 11. Asian governmentwide and senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

 

Figure 5. 12. American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) governmentwide and senior level pay (SLP) or Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2003 and 2018

Figure 5. 13. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) governmentwide and Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2018

 

Figure 5. 14. Two or More Races governmentwide and Senior Executive Service (SES) participation, FY 2018

Participation across General Schedule (GS) Pay Bands by Race/National Origin and Sex.  To examine disparities in rank, this report compares participation rates in higher GS pay bands to participation rates in lower GS pay bands and notes participation rate differences within RNO by sex groups.  If a group’s participation rate in higher GS pay bands is lower than their participation rates in lower GS pay bands or their overall GS participation, there is a trigger, or red flag, that barriers to EEO may exist.  Agencies should conduct similar analyses using these comparators, governmentwide participation, and/or pay bands within another pay system, where appropriate.  Where disparities exist, agencies should determine whether barriers prevent these groups from being hired into or advancing to higher grade levels, and where barriers exist, agencies should act to address the barriers.

In the General Schedule pay system, most RNO by sex groups participated at higher rates in the lower pay grades (See Table 5.1 and Appendix II).  The primary exceptions to this were White males and Asians of both sexes.  In 2018, White males made up 22.9% of employees in GS Grades 1 through 6, but 45.6% of employees in GS Grades 14 and 15. Asian males had a 2.0% participation rate in GS Grades 1 through 6, but their GS Grades 14 and 15 participation rate was 5.7%.  Asian females also had a higher participation rate in GS Grades 14 and 15 (4.3%) than they did in GS Grades 1 through 6 (3.1%); however, for GS Grade Bands 7 through 11 and 12 through 13, the pattern for Asian females showed some inconsistencies, with their GS Grades 12 through 13 participation rate being lower than their participation rate in GS Grades 7 through 11.  In 2018, White males had lower participation rates in the higher GS Grades than they did in 2003.  Asians, however, had great increases in their higher GS Grade participation rates between 2003 and 2018.

Hispanic/Latino males had their highest participation rates in the GS Grades 12 through 13 category (6.3%) and the GS 7 through 11 categories (5.4%), but they experienced a sharp drop-off in participation at GS Grades 14 and 15 (3.3%).  Since 2003, Hispanic/Latino Males have greatly increased their participation governmentwide, particularly in GS Grades 12 and 13.  Males of Two of More Races have a similar pattern, having steady participation rates in the low and middle GS Grades (GS Grades 1 through 13) and a sharp drop-off at GS Grades 14 and 15. 

In 2018, all other RNO by sex groups’ participation rates were lower in higher GS pay bands.  This general pattern was consistent with the 2003 data for Blacks/African Americans of both sexes, American Indians/Alaska Natives of both sexes, Hispanic/Latina women, and White women (No 2003 data was available for Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders or people of Two or More Races).  Hispanic/Latina women and Blacks/African Americans of both sexes increased their participation rates in the GS system between 2003 and 2018 in all pay-bands, but their participation rates in highest grades, although improved, remained below their overall GS participation levels.  American Indian/Alaska Native participation in the GS system declined overall but American Indian/Alaska Native females showed gains in GS Grades 7 through 15. 

For the two racial groups that do not have FY 2003 comparators, Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders and people of Two or More Races, generally diminishing participation rates still appear when moving up the pay scale, especially for females.  Finally, an analysis of gender alone promisingly shows that the gender gap of lower participation rates for women at higher GS pay bands is diminishing, yet still present.

Table 5. 1. Participation across GS Pay Bands by Race/National Origin and Sex, FY 2003 and FY 2018^[11]

Participation of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the Federal Workforce.  EEOC has long required the Federal Government to set hiring and workforce goals for people with targeted disabilities.  Targeted disabilities are severe disabilities and are associated with high rates of unemployment and underemployment.^[12]  In October 2016, the United States Office of Personnel Management modified the SF-256, Self-Identification of Disability Form.  This changed the terms used to describe targeted disabilities and allowed respondents to identify that they have a serious health condition without specifying the diagnosis.^[13]  EEOC introduced these new terms to its workforce data collection in the FY 2018 reporting period, and the new terms are used in this report.  The comparisons made to FY 2003 data in this section should be interpreted with caution due to this modification (See the footnote to Figure 5.15).

On January 3, 2017, EEOC amended the regulations implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, formalizing the requirement that federal agencies adopt a 2% goal for the participation rate of individuals with targeted disabilities.^[14]  The overall participation rate of individuals with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce substantially increased between 2003 and 2018, from 1.05% to 1.61% (See Figure 5.15).  This is still below the goal, but the trends are encouraging.  In FY 2016, only 10 independent agencies and subcomponents reached that goal.  Since then, this has incrementally increased.  In FY 2018, 10 out of 28 independent agencies, 10 out of 19 cabinet departments, and 37 out of 89 subcomponents of cabinet departments with 500 employees or more met the 2% goal (See Table 5.2 and Appendix II).

Table 5. 2. Participation of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities: Top Five Independent Agencies and Subcomponents (500+ Employees), FY 2018^[15]

As shown in Figure 15.5 and Table 5.3, three groups of individuals with targeted disabilities saw notable increases in their participation rates between 2003 and 2018: individuals who were deaf or had serious difficulty hearing (0.20% in 2003 vs. 0.37% in 2018), individuals who were blind or had serious difficulty seeing (0.11% vs. 0.17%), and individuals with significant psychiatric disorders (0.23% vs. 0.49%).  In both 2003 and 2018, significant psychiatric disorder was the most common type of targeted disability within the Federal Government and the second most common type of targeted disability was deafness or serious difficulty hearing.

Figure 5. 15. Participation of individuals with targeted disabilities governmentwide by disability type (Percentage of total workforce), FY 2003 and FY 2018^[16]

Table 5. 3. Participation of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Governmentwide by Disability Type (Percentage of Total Workforce), FY 2003 and FY 2018^[17]

Participation of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in General Schedule Pay Bands and in the Senior Executive Service.  As seen in Table 5.4 and Figure 5.16, individuals with targeted disabilities tended to participate in the lowest GS Grades at much higher rates than their participation rates in higher grades.  Figure 5.16 illustrates this decrease at higher grade levels, which was particularly notable for people with intellectual disabilities, significant psychiatric disorders, traumatic brain injury, and epilepsy or other seizure disorders.  However, individuals who were deaf or had serious difficulty hearing participated in the SES at a higher rate than their participation in all other GS Grade bands.  Individuals with developmental disabilities, with dwarfism, or who were blind or had serious difficulty seeing had their second highest participation rate in the SES.  Individuals with missing extremities or significant disfigurement had less notable participation rate declines in the higher graded bands. 

Table 5. 4. Participation of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in GS-Grade Ranges and the Senior Executive Service, FY 2018^[18]

 

Figure 5. 16. Participation of individuals with disabilities as a percentage of General Schedule (GS) pay bands and Senior Executive Service (SES), FY 2018^[19]

Part VI: Complaint Processing

This section summarizes federal sector EEO complaint activity for fiscal year 2018.  Using data from the Annual Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Reports of Discrimination Complaints  (Form 462) , this section compiles governmentwide data on complaints, investigations, hearings, and findings[20] of discrimination.  It also provides five-year trends in complaint activity (where trend data is available), governmentwide benchmarks, and highlights of some of the top performing agencies in federal sector EEO.  Our database consisted of 268 federal agencies and subcomponents submitting Form 462 for fiscal year 2018.  Because Form 462 is self-reported data, all data pertaining to complaints, investigations, and findings are reported “as submitted” to the Office of Federal Operations by agency stakeholders.  Agency-specific details for all aggregate results can be found in Appendix III.

Overview

EEOC Regulations in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. They also prohibit retaliation against an individual for participating in administrative or judicial proceedings involving employment discrimination or otherwise acting in reasonable opposition to unlawful discrimination.  Part 1614 establishes the process for filing a complaint of discrimination in the federal sector.  The EEO complaint process encompasses the following stages:

• The pre-complaint stage: Individuals initiate contact with an agency EEO counselor and are informed of their right to file a complaint, their legal options, and timeframes;
• The formal complaint stage: Individuals file a formal complaint with the agency’s EEO office (not the EEOC) by documenting, with sufficient detail, the nature of the offense and the accused parties; 
• The investigation stage: An EEO investigator is assigned to the case by the agency EEO Office and gathers specifics by interviewing the conflicting parties, speaking to witnesses, and reviewing documents relevant to the complaint;
• The adjudication stage: The complaint and report of investigation are reviewed by either the agency or an EEOC adjudicating judge, a final decision is made on the discrimination claim, and remedy is recommended, when appropriate; 
• The compliance stage: The complaint is closed and the AJ or agency order, if issued, is fully implemented.

Below are select federal sector statistics from each stage of the complaint process. 

Pre-Complaints/Informal Complaints

Timely Completed Counselings.  When individuals believe that they have experienced discrimination, they first must contact an EEO counselor prior to filing a formal complaint (29 C.F.R. Section 1614.105 (a)).  The aggrieved has 45 days after the alleged incident occurs to establish contact with an agency counselor.  The EEO Counselor has 30 days to complete a “timely” counseling, unless the aggrieved agrees to an extension of no more than 60 days.  Both counselings completed within 30 days and those completed within 60 days with a written extension are considered timely.  Where the aggrieved’s concerns are not resolved in counseling, the counselor must issue a “Notice of Final Interview”, including information about the aggrieved’s right to file a formal complaint, at the conclusion of counseling.

Table 6.1 is a list of the agencies with the highest rate of timely completed EEO counselings by agency size.  Among large agencies, the U.S. Postal Service had the highest rate of timely completed counselings at 99.16%, followed closely by the Social Security Administration at 98.70%.  Among medium agencies, the Bureau of Consumer Financial protection, DOD Defense Contract Audit Agency, DOD Defense Contract Management Agency, DOD Defense Information Systems, and DOD Office of the Secretary/Washington Headquarters Services all have timely completed counseling rates of 100%.  Other medium agencies with 100% timeliness include the Department of Labor, General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Securities Exchange Administration, and the Smithsonian Institution.  A full list of agency timely counseling rates can be found in Appendix III, Table B2.

Table 6. 1. Agencies with the highest rate of timely completed counselings* (B2)

Note. Agencies with 25 or more completed counselings. Agency Size: Large= Large Agencies (15,000 or more employees) Medium= Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

Pre-Complaint ADR Acceptances and Resolutions.  Anytime during the complaint process, the aggrieved may enter into an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) forum designed to remedy the situation quickly and effectively to the satisfaction of both parties.  Examples of common ADR techniques include mediation, settlement conferences, and facilitation. [21]  All agencies are required to establish or make available an ADR program during both the pre-complaint and formal complaint processes. [22] ADR should be offered at the beginning of counseling.[23]   If chosen, then the agency has 90 days to conduct the ADR and complete counseling. [24] If not chosen, then the agency has 30 days, which may be extended by agreement, to complete traditional counseling. [25] 

Figure 6.1 displays the rate of ADR acceptances among individuals receiving pre-complaint counseling.  There were 37,042 pre-complaint counselings completed during FY 2018, with an ADR offer rate of 86.83%.  Among the 37,042 completed counselings, approximately 61.33% accepted ADR while 38.67% rejected the offer. [26]  The ADR offer rate for each agency can be found in Appendix III, Table B4.  

Figure 6. 1. Distribution of ADR outcomes: Offers, rejections, and acceptances (B4)

In FY 2018, there were a total of 19,727 pre-complaint ADR closures (Figure 6.2), with a resolution rate of 64.44%.  Approximately 21.71% of all pre-complaint ADR Closures led to settlements while 42.73% resulted in a withdrawal with no formal complaint filed.  Appendix III, Table B5 provides the distribution of pre-complaint ADR resolutions by agency.

Figure 6. 2. Distribution of ADR pre-complaint resolutions (informal phase) (B5)

FY 2018 saw a total of 20,592 pre-complaint resolutions—i.e. resolutions with no formal complaint filed (Table 6.2); more than 55% of all completed counselings.  Among the 20,592 resolutions, 12.70% resulted in a settlement, with 899 of these resolutions resulting in a monetary settlement.  The average monetary settlement was $3,996, for a total governmentwide pay out of over $3.6 million.  Appendix III, Table B6 displays the settlement rate and monetary benefits awarded by agency.   

Table 6. 2. Distribution of benefits provided in all pre-complaint settlements, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B3, B6)

Formal Complaints

Formal Complaints Filed.  If the matter is not resolved through either traditional counseling or pre-complaint ADR, individuals have the option to enter the formal complaint process within 15 days of receiving a notice of final interview (NFI). [27]  The formal complaint must be a signed statement from the complainant or the complainant's attorney that sufficiently identifies the complainant, the charged agency, the basis of discrimination (e.g., race, color, etc.), and the action or practice that is the basis of the complaint. [28]

Figure 6.3 displays the number of counselings resulting in a formal complaint filing.  Among the 37,042 counselings initiated governmentwide, 12.70% ended in a settlement, 42.90% ended with a withdrawal from the complaint process, and 42.10% resulted in a formal complaint filing.  Approximately 2.30% of all counselings were pending the aggrieved’s decision of whether to file a formal complaint at the end of FY 2018.

Figure 6. 3. Distribution of pre-complaint outcomes (B3)

Forty-two point one percent of completed counseling cases eventually led to formal complaints filed in all government agencies in FY 2018, a slight decrease from 42.26% in FY 2017 (Figure 6.3).  However, the total number of counselings that ended by filing complaints in fact increased from 14,724 in FY 2017 to 15,578 in FY 2018 (Figure 6.4).

Figure 6. 4. Governmentwide Five-Year Trend for Number of Complaints Filed with 2003 Trendline (B3)

Among agencies with 25 or more completed counselings in FY 2018, the DOD Army and Air Force Exchange Service had the lowest rate of complaints filed at 19.90% (Table 6.3).  Agency for International Development had the lowest rate of complaints filed among  medium agencies with a rate of 5.45%.

Table 6. 3. Agencies with the Lowest Rates of Complaints Filed for FY 2018 (B3)

*Work force numbers as reported by the agency in its FY 2018 462 report.

To gain some insight into the frequency of complaint filings, the EEOC calculated what percentage of federal employees file formal complaints – or become “complainants” – at each agency.  Table 6.4 displays the agencies with the lowest rate of complainants by agency size, and the total number of complaints (a complainant may file multiple complaints). Governmentwide, the rate of complainants was 0.52% (Appendix III, Table B1).  The DOD Army and Air Force Exchange Service, DOD Department of the Air force, Department of State, Department of Navy, and the Department of Commerce reported the lowest rates of complaints filed among large agencies.  The Tennessee Valley Authority, DOD Defense Finance and Accounting Services, DOD Defense Contract Management Agency, Department of Energy, and the DOD Department of Defense Education Activity had the lowest complainant rates among medium agencies.  A full list of rates of complainants by agency can be found in Appendix III, Table B1.

Table 6. 4. Agencies with the Lowest Rate of Complainants* for FY2018 (B1)

Note: Agencies with 25 or more complaints filed. Agency Size: Large= Large Agencies (15,000 or more employees) Medium= Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

Processing Time for Complaint Closures.  As one potential gauge of efficiency in EEO programs, the EEOC calculated the number of days on average needed to close complaints after filing.[29]  In FY 2018, the governmentwide average processing time from complaint filing to closure is 592 days, down from 513 days in FY 2017 (Figure 6.5).  At 345 days, the Department of Commerce needed the least amount of time among cabinet agencies (Table 6.5).  Among medium-sized agencies, the National Labor Relations Board required the least time with an average of 92 days, significantly lower than the governmentwide average.

Figure 6. 5. Governmentwide Average Processing Time for Complaint Closures(B7)

 

Table 6. 5. Agencies with the Shortest Processing Days for FY 2018 (B7)

Note: Agencies with 25 or more Counselings. Agency Size: Large= Large Agencies (15,000 or more employees) Medium= Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

Top Bases and Issues (Formal Complaints).  Of the 15,578 complaints filed in FY 2018, the basis most frequently alleged was reprisal/retaliation (8,185), followed by age (4,851) and physical disability (4,666) (Table 6.6 and see Appendix VII).  The issue alleged most frequently in complaints was non-sexual harassment (7,733), followed by disciplinary action (3,899), and terms/conditions (2,593) (Table 6.7 and see Appendix VIII).

 

Table 6. 6. Top Five Bases in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2018 (B8)

 

 

Table 6. 7. Top Five Issues in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2018 (B8)

Investigations

Completed Investigations.  After the complainant files a formal complaint, the agency typically decides whether to investigate or dismiss the case.  Dismissal decisions are appealable to the EEOC Office of Federal Operations, but investigations are conducted by the agency.  The agency has 180 days from the formal complaint filing to complete the investigation, unless an extension of up to 360 days from the original filing is warranted due to complaint amendments.  At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency provides the complainant with a Report of Investigation and notifies them of the right to request a hearing with an EEOC Administrative Judge or a final agency decision within 30 days. 

Figure 6.6 displays the total completed investigations for FY 2018.  Overall, the number of completed investigations has increased since last year, up from 12,082 completed investigations in 2017 to 12,248 completed investigations in 2018.  This represents the highest number of completed investigations over the last five fiscal years.

Note. Dotted line represents a gap between fiscal year 2003 and 2014.

Figure 6. 6. Total Completed Investigations, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B9)

Completed Investigations: Costs and Timeliness.  Investigators required, on average, 189 days to complete investigations during FY 2018, down 2.1% from the previous year (Figure 6.7).  Overall, average processing days for investigations have decreased by 29.2% since the introduction of MD-715 in 2003.  The average costs of investigations are down from 2017, from $3,715 in 2017 to $3,682 in 2018 (a .88% decrease) (Figure 6.8).

 

 

Note. Dotted line represents a gap between fiscal year 2003 and 2013.

Figure 6. 7. Average Processing Days of all completed investigations, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B9)

Figure 6. 8. Total and Average Cost of Completed Investigations, FY 2013-FY2018 (B9)

Table 6.8 displays the agencies with the highest rates of timely completed investigations by agency size.  Among large agencies, the Department of Commerce timely completed 100% of their investigations, followed closely by the U.S. Postal Service at 99% and the Department of Labor at 98%.  Rounding out the top five large agencies, the Department of Treasury timely completed 96% of its investigations, followed by The Department of State at 94%. (See Appendix IX.)

Among medium agencies, the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management both timely completed 100% of their investigations, followed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation at 96%, the DOD Defense Threat Reduction Agency at 90%, and the Environmental Protection Agency at 90%. A full listing of timely completed investigation rates for all agencies can be found in Appendix III, Table B7.

Table 6. 8. Top agencies for timely completed investigations* (B7)

*Agencies with 20 or more completed investigations. Agency Size: Large= Large Agencies (15,000 or more employees) Medium= Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

Formal Complaint Closures and Compliance

Formal Complaint Closures and Processing Time.  A formal complaint is considered “closed” when an agency has taken a final action on the complaint.  Final agency actions include its final agency decisions (FADs) to dismiss an entire complaint, FADs at the conclusion of the investigation where the complainant did not request a hearing, or final orders after a decision from an EEOC AJ to either fully implement or reject and appeal the AJ’s decision. [30]

Figure 6.9 displays the total number of formal complaint closures (AJ Decisions and Final Agency Decisions) and the average processing days for FY 2018.  The number of formal complaint closures were up in 2018, from 13,851 in the previous year to 14,852.  Average processing time for complaint closures increased between 2017 and 2018 by 79 days.  A full list of the average processing days for complaint closures by agency can be found in Appendix III, Table B10.

Note. Dotted line represents a gap between fiscal year 2003 and 2014.

Figure 6. 9. Average Processing Days for all complaint closures, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complaint Closures by Statute.  Figure 6.10 displays the total complaint closures by statute for FY 2018. [31]  Among all complaint closures, 56% were based on Title VII complaints, while the Rehabilitation Act and ADEA accounted for 21% and 22%, respectively.  EPA and GINA both accounted for less than 1% of all complaint closures each, consistent with their occurrence.  

Figure 6. 10. Complaint closures by statute, FY 2017 (B22)

ADR (Formal Complaint Stage).  Agencies also are encouraged to offer ADR to complainants after the formal complaint has been filed – not just in pre-complaint counseling.[32] Of the 14,852 formal complaint closures in FY 2018, 6.9% were accepted into ADR during the formal complaint stage, down from the FY 2017 rate (Figure 6.11).  Overall, 1,023 formal complaints accepted into ADR were closed during FY2018, down only slightly from 2017.  Among the 1,023 formal complaints closed as a result of ADR, approximately 41% were settled while another 3.3% resulted in a withdrawal (Figure 6.12).         

 

Figure 6. 11. ADR complaint closures acceptance/participation rate, FY 2013-FY 2018 (B19)

 

Figure 6. 12. ADR complaint resolutions by type (B20)

Merit Decisions and Processing Time.  Merit final agency decisions are the decisions made by an agency regarding a formal discrimination complaint, excluding procedural dismissals.  They include agency final orders to implement or reject and appeal an EEOC AJ’s decision on the merits of a claim. 

Figure 6.13 displays the total number of final agency decisions that reached the merits of the underlying complaint (merit FADS) issued and the average processing days (APD) (from the day a complaint is filed to the day when the agency issues a final decision) for all such merit FADs for FY 2018.  Merit FADs dropped by 2.3% between 2017 and 2018.  The APD for FADs was down from 343 days in 2017 to 335 days in 2018. 

 

Figure 6. 13. Average Processing Days for all final agency decisions, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B16, B17)

The number of final agency actions issued after an AJ decision has increased since 2017, from 1,986 in 2017 to 2,936 in 2018 (Figure 6.14).  The average processing time for final orders after AJ decisions has generally increased since 2017, from 1,117 days to 1,336 days.  The total number of findings of discrimination among these FADs and final orders have decreased from FY 2017, from 158 to 139 (Table 6.9).  Overall, the number of findings has decreased by 14% since 2014.

 

Figure 6. 14. Average Processing Days for final orders fully implementing AJ decisions, FY 2014-FY 2018 (B15, B17)

Table 6. 9. Rate of findings of discrimination, FY 2013-FY 2018 (B15)

 

Monetary Benefits Awarded (Formal Complaint Closures).  The chart below (Table 6.10) reveals the formal complaint closures with monetary benefits, governmentwide with FY 2003 as a comparison year.  The monetary benefits are categorized as follows: back pay/front pay, lump sum payments, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees.

In FY 2018, the monetary benefits[33] awarded during the complaint stage amount to almost 52 million dollars, a 4.8% decrease from FY 2017.

Table 6. 10. Monetary benefits awarded during complaint process, FY 2012-FY 2018 (B21)

 

Part VII: Summary & Conclusions

On October 1, 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued Management Directive 715 (MD-715) to provide agencies with guidance and standards for effective equal employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action programs.  The EEOC believed that this additional guidance, and its robust reporting requirements, would lead to improvements in equal employment opportunity indicators at federal agencies.  The results of this report, which focused on the progress made since the issuance of MD-715 and the prevention of discrimination, provide support for this belief; however, there is more work to be done. A decrease in use of the process and fewer findings of discrimination do not necessarily indicate that discrimination within the federal government is decreasing, especially in light of our enhanced recognition of the role of systemic discrimination in the workplace. Other factors such as disengagement with the process or fear of retaliation could also contribute to such a decline.

Data reveals that over 88% of reporting agencies evaluated managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO, over 86% had prominently posted their reasonable accommodations procedures, and almost 78% had senior managers participate in barrier analysis.  However, the agency head was the immediate supervisor of the EEO Director at only 63.7% of agencies.  This deficiency violates EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(4)) and limits the effectiveness of the EEO Directors.[34]  When the agency head is supportive of and actively engaged with the EEO program, this conveys to employees to take EEO seriously.  Federal agencies should take steps to remedy this deficiency and demonstrate their intentions to prevent employment discrimination.

Regarding federal workforce composition, all race/national origin by gender groups, except for Hispanic/Latina females and Whites, participated at rates above their representation in the 2010 CLF.  Hispanics, African Americans/Blacks, Asians, and American Indians/Alaska Natives had increasing participation between 2003 and 2018, with Hispanic males surpassing their CLF benchmark.  Whites of both sexes, however, had decreasing participation rates; White men’s participation rate dropped below their CLF participation rate, and White females’ participation rate was almost 10% below their CLF participation rate.

Federal agencies must do more than record agency-wide participation rates to be model employers; they also must identify and strive to remedy the root causes of unbalanced participation within occupations, offices, and grade levels.  By 2018, the notably high participation rate of White males in higher GS grade levels and senior level pay positions was somewhat attenuated, but White males still held these privileged positions at rates far above their representation in the CLF and the governmentwide workforce.

However, most other RNO by sex groups for which we have 2003 data increased their participation in the higher GS grades (GS 12 through 15) and in senior level pay positions by 2018.  The increase in higher GS grade participation was particularly notable for Black females, Asians of both sexes, and Hispanics/Latinos of both sexes.  Within the senior level pay positions, Black females, Asians of both sexes, and American Indians/Alaska Natives of both sexes saw substantial participation increases.  Despite these increases, most groups still hold these positions at rates lower than their overall GS participation rates.  Broader outreach and more inclusive recruitment methods, as well as training and development programs, may help to remedy this issue.

For people with targeted disabilities, participation rates increased in 2018 in comparison to 2003, and far more agencies met the 2% benchmark in FY 2018 than did in FY 2016.  Governmentwide, however, people with targeted disabilities (1.61% of the federal workforce) still participated at levels far below the 2% benchmark.  Notably, there were increased participation rates of workers who were deaf or had serious difficulty hearing, workers who were blind or had serious difficulty seeing, and workers with significant psychiatric disorders.  It is possible that EEOC’s amendments to Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, issued January 3, 2017, contributed to the improved participation rates of individuals with targeted disabilities.  Still, people with targeted disabilities generally had lower participation rates in higher GS grades and senior level pay positions than they did in lower level positions. 

Regarding complaints, further action is required to prevent reprisal and non-sexual harassment, which continue to be the top basis and issue in EEO complaint allegations.  However, data shows positive trends in the decreasing total number of complaints since 2003 (20,226 in 2003 to 15,482 in 2017 to 15,578 in 2018), and a smaller proportion of counselings resulted in formal complaints, which could reflect better pre-complaint processes.  Similarly, the number of merit complaint closures resulting in findings of discrimination has decreased from 184 in 2013 to 139 in 2018.

Despite declines in complaints and findings, EEO conflicts are still costly for federal agencies.  Pre-complaint resolutions that included monetary benefits resulted in an average award of $3,996, down over $1,500 from the previous year.  Moreover, in FY 2018, the total monetary benefits awarded during the complaint stage amounted to roughly $52 million, down 4.8% from FY 2017.  Almost half of that spending resulted from lump sum payments, which are often, but not always, associated with harassment.  The average costs of investigations also dropped from the previous year to $3,682, a decrease of .88%.

A review of efficiency in the federal sector pre-complaint and complaint processes leaves reason for optimism.  In pre-complaints, ADR, which has a higher pre-complaint resolution success rate relative to traditional counseling, is widely offered (offer rate of 86.83%), and accepted most times when offered (61.33%).  Further, 2018 saw a continued increased timeliness in the completion of intermediate steps: the average processing days for completed investigations has decreased by 3.60% since 2014, and the average processing days for final agency decisions has decreased by 23.69%.[35] However, the average processing time for complaint closures is at a five-year high, with the average processing time increasing by 41.39% since 2014. 

With the information available in this report, EEOC looks to build on the gains in EEO in the Federal Government since the implementation of MD-715 in 2003.  OFO and federal EEO programs will continue to work proactively to prevent employment discrimination through training, barrier analysis, and engaging with agency leadership to promote positive workplace cultures.  To address suspected discrimination that has already occurred, EEO staff and OFO will take individuals’ concerns seriously, and work to process their claims efficiently.  While further progress is imperative to eradicate employment discrimination in the Federal Government, the EEOC, in cooperation with its federal partners, will continue to work towards that goal.

 

APPENDIX I. Glossary

Administrative Judge (AJ) – An official assigned by the EEOC to hold hearings on formal complaints of discrimination and to otherwise process individual and class complaints for the EEOC.

Agency - Military departments as defined in Section 102 of Title 5, U.S. Code and executive agencies as defined in Section 105 of Tile 5, U.S. Code, the United States Postal Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, those units of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government having positions in the competitive service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps, the Government Printing Office and the Smithsonian Institution (including those with employees and applicants for employment who are paid from non-appropriated funds).

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Closures - The number of counselings or complaints that completed the ADR process during the fiscal year.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Offer Rate - The percentage of completed/ended counselings or the complaint closures that received an ADR offer.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Participation Rate - The percentage of completed/ended counseling or the complaint closures where both parties agreed to participate in ADR.

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

Average Processing Days (APD) - The total number of days divided by the number of investigations, complaint closures, final agency decisions (FADs), or administrative judge (AJ) decisions.

Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) System – An automated information system containing individuals records for most Federal civilian employees.  It includes a status file with an individual record of the status of each active employee and a dynamics file with a record of all personnel actions.  The files are updated quarterly.  For the purposed of creating reports, EEOC receives these data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Civilian Labor Force (CLF) - Data from the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulation 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 2006-2010 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data.

Complainant Rate - The percentage of individuals in an agency’s total workforce who filed a complaint.

Complainants - Individuals, either employees or applicants, who filed a formal complaint against a federal agency during the fiscal year.

Complaint Closures - The number of complaints that were completed in the formal complaint process during the fiscal year.

Complaints Filed - The number of complaints that were filed against the Federal Government during the fiscal year.

Completed/Ended Counselings - The number of counselings which were concluded/closed, either by a written settlement agreement, a written withdrawal from the counseling process, the issuance of a notice of right to file a formal complaint, the forwarding of a counseling to an Administrative Judge when requested/ordered by the Administrative Judge, or the filing of a complaint after the regulatory counseling period has expired even though not all counseling duties have been performed during the fiscal year.

Counseling – The initial step in the federal sector EEO complaint process in which an employee, former employee, or applicant discusses the case with an EEO counselor from his or her agency.

Counseling Rate - The percentage of individuals who completed counseling per the total workforce.

Counselings Initiated - The number of new counselings that began during the current fiscal year.

Decision to File Complaint Pending - The number of completed counselings in which (1) the agency did not receive a complaint, and (2) the 15-day period for filing a complaint had not expired at the end of the fiscal year.

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

Dismissals - An agency's final action on a complaint of discrimination which meets the criteria set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a).

EEO Commitment Indicators - Measures that indicate whether a federal agency is committed to equal employment opportunities (EEO) and the prevention of employment discrimination.  For this report, they come from Part G of EEOC Form 715-01, the Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.

EEOC Form 462 Report – The Annual Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints, the document in which federal agencies report their discrimination complaint process statistics for the prior fiscal year (October 1^st through September 30^th) to EEOC.

Final Agency Actions - An agency's final action on a complaint of discrimination, which includes a final agency decision, a final order implementing an EEOC Administrative Judge's decision, or a final determination on a breach of settlement agreement claim.

Final Agency Decision – A decision made by the agency after a complaint has been made with one of the following outcomes: 1) Dismissal of the complaint for a procedural reason (e.g., the claim was filed too late); 2) Finding no discrimination; or 3) Finding discrimination.

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

Investigations - The number of agency reviews or inquiries into claims of discrimination raised in an EEO complaint, resulting in a report of investigation.

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

Major Occupations - Agency occupations that are mission-related and heavily populated, relative to other occupations within the agency.

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 - EEO Management Directive 715 describes program responsibilities and reporting requirements relating to agencies' EEO programs.

MD-715 Report - The document which agencies use to annually report the status of their activities undertaken pursuant to their EEO program under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their activities undertaken pursuant to affirmative action obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  This is formally known as The Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report or EEOC Form 715-02.

Merit Decisions - Decisions that determine whether or not discrimination was proven (issued by either a federal agency or an EEOC administrative judge).

Monetary Benefits - A payment that an agency agreed to provide in a settlement agreement, a final agency decision finding discrimination, or a final order agreeing to fully implement an EEOC Administrative Judge's decision containing a payment award.

No Complaint Filed - Occurs when: (1) agency issues a Notice of Right to File Letter and does not receive a formal complaint within 15 days; or (2) the individual notifies the agency in writing that s/he is withdrawing from counseling.

Not Identified Disability Status - Refers to the disability status of a federal employee or applicant who selected “I do not wish to identify my disability or serious health condition” on OPM’s SF-256 (Revised October 2016), who selected “I do not wish to identify my disability status” on OPM’s SF-256 (Revised July 2010), or who was otherwise coded as such by a federal personnel officer or OPM.

Other Pay System Positions - Those positions in alternative pay plans based on performance, like pay-banding, and market-based pay systems that are not easily converted to General Schedule and Related.

Participation Rate - The extent to which members of a specific demographic group are represented in an agency's workforce or a subset of an agency’s workforce, such as a grade band.

Permanent Workforce - Full-time, part-time, and intermittent employees of a particular agency. For purposes of this Report, those persons employed as of September 30, 2018.

Race/Ethnicity – See https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf181.pdf (U.S. Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 181) -

• American Indian or Alaska Native - All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
• Asian - All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
• Black or African American (Not of Hispanic Origin) - All persons having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
• Hispanic or Latino - All persons of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander - All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
• White (Not of Hispanic Origin) - All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
• Persons of Two or More Races - All persons who identify with two or more of the above race categories.

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

Second Level Reporting Component - A subcomponent of a larger federal agency which has 1,000 or more employees and which is required to file an EEOC MD-715 report with the EEOC. While many Federal agencies have subordinate components, not every subordinate component is a Second Level Reporting Component for purposes of filing MD-715 reports. A list of federal agencies and departments covered by MD-715 and Second Level Reporting Components is posted on the EEOC's website at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/department-or-agency-list-second-level-reporting-components.

Senior Executive Service (SES) - A premier category of senior leaders in the Federal Government which was created to “...ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.”^[36] 

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

Settlements - Where an agency agrees to award monetary or non-monetary benefits to an individual who agreed either to not file a formal complaint or to withdraw a formal complaint.

SLP – Senior Level Pay.  See “Senior Pay Level Positions.”

Subcomponent – A subordinate component of a larger federal agency or department. 

Targeted Disabilities - Those disabilities that the Federal Government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis. The targeted disabilities are developmental disability, traumatic brain injury (TBI), deaf or serious difficulty hearing, blind or serious difficulty seeing, missing extremities, significant mobility impairment, partial or complete paralysis, epilepsy or other seizure disorders, intellectual disability, significant psychiatric disability, dwarfism, and significant disfigurement.

Temporary Workforce -Employees in positions established for a limited time period, usually for less than a year.

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

Training - The process of educating managers and employees on the laws enforced by EEOC and how to prevent and correct discrimination in the workplace and educating EEO professionals in carrying out the agency's equal opportunity responsibilities.

Withdrawals - An election to end the EEO process during the formal complaint stage.

 

 

 

APPENDIX II. Workforce (A) Tables

Available at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/tables.cfm.

 

Table A-1b: FY 2018 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Race/National Origin, Sex, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents with 500 or More Employees)

Table A-1d: FY 2018 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Race/National Origin, Sex, and Agency (Independent Agencies with 500 or More Employees)

Table A-2b: FY 2018 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Race/National Origin, Sex, GS-Grade, Senior Level Pay, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents with 500 or More Employees)

Table A-2d: FY 2018 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Race/National Origin, Sex, GS-Grade, Senior Level Pay, and Agency (Independent Agencies with 500 or More Employees)

Table A-3b: FY 2018 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Disability Type and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents with 500 or More Employees)

Table A-3d: FY 2018 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Disability Type and Agency (Independent Agencies with 500 or More Employees)

Table A-4b: FY 2018 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Disability Status, GS-Grade, Senior Level Pay, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents with 500 or More Employees)

Table A-4d: FY 2018 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Disability Status, GS-Grade, Senior Level Pay, and Agency (Independent Agencies with 500 or More Employees)

APPENDIX III. Complaint Processing (B) Tables

Available at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/tables.cfm.

 

Table B-1   FY 2018  Total Work Force, Counselings, and Complaints                                               

Table B-1a   FY 2018  Total Work Force, Counselings, and Complaints - Sub-Component Data  

Table B-2   FY 2018  All Timely Completed Counselings

Table B-2a   FY 2018  All Timely Completed Counselings - Sub-Component Data                           

Table B-3   FY 2018  Outcomes of All Pre-Complaint Closures

Table B-3a   FY 2018  Outcomes of All Pre-Complaint Closures - Sub-Component Data

Table B-4   FY 2018  Pre-Complaint ADR Offers, Rejections, and Acceptances                                

Table B-5   FY 2018  ADR Pre-Complaint Resolutions (Informal Phase)                                               

Table B-6   FY 2018  Benefits Provided in All Pre-Complaint Settlements                                           

Table B-7   FY 2018  Profile Agency Timeliness Indicators (totals with and without USPS data) 

Table B-7a   FY 2018  Profile Agency Timeliness Indicators (totals with and without USPS data) 

Table B-8a   FY 2018  Complaints Filed Basis and Issues  - Cabinet Level Agencies                          

Table B-8b   FY 2018  Complaints Filed Basis and Issues  - Medium Sized Agencies                          

Table B-8c   FY 2018  Complaints Filed Basis and Issues  - Small Agencies    

Table B-8   FY 2018  Complaints Filed Basis and Issues  - Grand Total

Table B-9   FY 2018  Timeliness and Cost of All Completed Complaint Investigations            

Table B-9a   FY 2018  Timeliness and Cost of Complaint Investigations Completed by Agency Investigators

Table B-9b   FY 2018  Timeliness and Cost of Complaint Investigations Completed by Contract Investigators

Table B-9c   FY 2018  Timeliness and Cost of All Completed Complaint Investigations                       

Table B-10   FY 2018  Total Number and Average Processing Days for All Complaint Closures         

Table B-11   FY 2018  Types of Complaint Closures                                                                

Table B-12   FY 2018  Average Processing Days (APD) All Complaint Closures                                  

Table B-13   FY 2018  Complaints Closed with Dismissals                                                                   

Table B-14   FY 2018  Timeliness of Merit Final Agency Decisions (FAD) (No AJ Decision)                       

Table B-14a   FY 2018  Timeliness of Merit Final Agency Decisions (FAD) (No AJ Decision) - Sub-Component Data

Table B-15   FY 2018  Complaints Closed with Findings of Discrimination                                          

Table B-16   FY 2018  Complaints Closed with Findings of No Discrimination                        

Table B-17   FY 2018  Average Processing Days (APD) Final Agency Decisions (FADs) and Final Orders (FOs) Fully Implementing (FI) AJ Decisions

Table B-18   FY 2018  Average Processing Days (APD) Final Orders (FOs) Not Fully Implementing (NFI) AJ Decisions

Table B-19   FY 2018  Total Complaint Closures Accepted/Participated in ADR

Table B-20   FY 2018  ADR Complaint Resolutions (Formal Phase)

Table B-21   FY 2018  Complaint Closures with Benefits

Table B-22   FY 2018  Complaint Closures By Statute

Table B-23   FY 2018  Summary of Pending Complaints By Category

Table B-24   FY 2018  Agency Staff Resources

Table B-24a   FY 2018  Contract Staff Resources

Table B-25   FY 2018  Agency New Staff Training

Table B-26   FY 2018  Agency Experienced Staff Training

Table B-27   FY 2018  Contractor New Staff Training

Table B-28   FY 2018  Contractor Experienced Staff Training

 

APPENDIX IV. Participation Rate of Persons with Targeted Disabilities (Infographic)

APPENDIX V. Demographics of the Federal Government SES in FY 2018 (Infographic)

APPENDIX VI. Total Complaints by Race, FY2018 (Infographic)

APPENDIX VII. Top 5 Bases for Complaints Filed, FY2018 (Infographic)

APPENDIX VIII. Top 5 Bases for Harassment Complaints, FY2018 (Infographic)

 

---