U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

COMMISSION MEETING

+ + + + +

OPEN SESSION

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

JANUARY 14, 2026

+ + + + +

The EEOC met at 9:00 a.m. EST,

 Andrea Lucas, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

ANDREA LUCAS, Chair

KALPANA KOTAGAL, Commissioner

BRITTANY BULL PANUCCIO, Commissioner

ALSO PRESENT

RAYMOND L. PEELER, Legal Counsel

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

9:00 a.m.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Good morning.  Welcome to the first meeting of the EEOC and the second Trump administration.  I'm Andrea Lucas, chair of the EEOC.  I'm grateful for the opportunity to chair the Commission and work with my colleagues, Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio.  It's an honor to lead the Agency at such a pivotal moment as we work to remedy and prevent discrimination in our nation's workplaces and to restore even-handed enforcement of civil rights laws to all Americans.

          I also want to welcome the Agency staff and members of the public who are joining us today, whether in person, virtually, or on audio line.  I'm going to turn it over now to our acting legal counsel, Ray Peeler, to give a presentation on the Sunshine Act.  Ray.

1. PEELER: Thank you.  This meeting of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was noticed pursuant to the requirements of the Sunshine Act.  It is open to the public, and as such, the commissioners are free to deliberate, consistent with the order of this meeting.  The public was invited to listen to the deliberations of the Commission in person or via call-in line.  However, remarks and questions will not be taken.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you, Ray.  As noted, pursuant to the Sunshine Act, a week ago, the Commission issued notice of two items for consideration on the agenda for today's meeting.  However, as I'll discuss later in the meeting for the record, after that Sunshine Act notice was published, the Commission subsequently resolved the second item by notation voting.  Before we can begin consideration of the first item on the agenda, each commissioner may give an opening statement, if she chooses.  We'll then proceed to the first agenda item.

          We'll have two rounds of discussion from each commissioner.  In my first round for the agenda item, I'll make a motion to introduce the matter and provide a summary of and commentary on the matter.  I'll then defer to Commissioners Kotagal and Panuccio in turn to take up to five minutes to address the question in the round.

          Commissioners, you may use your time to discuss the agenda item in question.  Additionally, if you wish to use your time to make a motion to amend the underlying item, you may do so.  If an amendment receives a second, we would turn to consideration of the amendment.  After any amendment was voted on, we would resume debate on the underlying agenda item, which may or may not have been amended, depending on how the amendment was received. 

          If there's no second for a motion to amend the underlying item, the amendment fails and will return to the underlying motion.  That concludes my opening statement.  I'll have more discussion on the actual item once we turn to it.  With this overview in mind, I defer to my colleagues for the opening statement.  I'll turn first to Commissioner Kotagal.  Commissioner Kotagal, the floor is yours.

          COMMISSIONER KOTAGAL:  Thank you, Chair Lucas.  Before I begin, I wanted to formally welcome Commissioner Panuccio.  I really look forward to working with you to advance equal employment opportunity and robust civil rights protections and have enjoyed our conversations so far.

          Since this is our first public meeting of this administration, I wanted to take a few minutes to speak to why the voting procedures are so important and how they fit into the broader history and design of the Commission.  In 1964, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a year later, the EEOC opened its doors.  Title VII established that the Commission would be comprised of five members with no more than three of the same political party, thus baking bipartisan dialogue and debate into its design.

          Central to this structure is that members of the Commission must have a meaningful opportunity to deliberate and negotiate, and that our positions, including as members of the minority, must be meaningful.  Our bipartisan commission was tasked with a crucial job, enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against workers based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, and in the decades since, our responsibilities have only grown with the enactment of new statutory protections.

          And Title VII itself has expanded since it was enacted with the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, and amendments in 1991 to codify the disparate impact theory of discrimination first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1971.  And the recognition by the Supreme Court in 2020 in a trio of cases, including one brought by the EEOC on behalf of a transgender worker that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.

          While much of the work of the Commission is handled by our dedicated staff in headquarters and across the country, certain responsibilities, of course, must be handled by the Commission, including, among other things, the issuance of regulations or guidance to help workers understand their rights and employers understand their responsibilities.

          Prior to 1980, all such matters were decided at regular meetings.  In fact, in 1973, the Commission, by a vote of 4:1, approved a resolution that individual commissioners are permitted to place items on the agenda for the next meeting.  Only the then chair disapproved this acknowledgement of commissioner authority.  In 1976, Congress passed the Government in the Sunshine Act, which declared that the public is entitled to the fullest practical information regarding the decision-making processes of the federal government.

          Pursuant to the Sunshine Act, the Commission must hold a formally announced meeting in order for the three of us commissioners to deliberate together.  Without a commission meeting, commissioners must negotiate one-on-one through shuttle diplomacy and outside the public view.

          In 1977, the EEOC issued regulations implementing the Sunshine Act and also adopted what is now EEOC Order 150.002, which states that, I quote, the Chair shall have the responsibility to set the time and place for each meeting and accept from members of the Commission items for inclusion on the agenda, end quote.  In 1980, the notation voting system was put into place, albeit on paper.  Commissioners would request that a matter be discussed at a meeting by writing in an agenda vote.

          And in 1989, Chairman Clarence Thomas had the system computerized and formally added the agenda option to ensure that each commissioner's role is meaningful, consistent with the statute, and to permit public Commission discussion of matters that any individual commissioner deemed to be important.

          While I will speak further on this during debate, I can't help but note that in this first meeting we have had since regaining quorum, which we are having because I cast a vote to agenda the matter, the only item up for discussion is the rescission of the voting procedures that enshrine this long-standing Commission-approved practice of the agenda vote.  This right to an agenda vote will instead be replaced by procedures that grant the Chair unilateral authority to disregard a commissioner's agenda vote.

          And while I anticipate that in the coming month we will have many policy disagreements, those disagreements needn't result in the stripping of power from commissioners and concentration of power with the Chair.  Our disagreements should be ones that we can transparently discuss and debate for the benefit of the American public we serve through a process consistent with the role of the Commission envisioned by our statute.  Thank you so much.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you, Commissioner Kotagal.  I'll turn now to Commissioner Panuccio.

          COMMISSIONER PANUCCIO:  Good morning.  Thank you, Madam Chair, for the inspiring vision and leadership you bring to this agency.  I am grateful to join you and Commissioner Kotagal.  Thank you for the warm welcome.  Thank you for this opportunity to speak today.  I'm delighted to be here for my first public meeting as a commissioner, and I look forward to continuing to work together with my fellow commissioners to achieve the EEOC's vital mission, which Commissioner Kotagal alluded to, preventing and remedying discrimination in our nation's workplaces and advancing equal opportunity for all.

          This mission reflects foundational promises of this great nation that all Americans are inherently created equal and are entitled to equal treatment under the law.  Americans have the right to be judged on the content of their character, skills, and abilities rather than the color of their skin or their sex.  And these values have always been important to me.  Starting with my time as a public school teacher in Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood, I have dedicated my career to public service, civil rights, and equal opportunity.

          So it is my great honor to serve now as a commissioner at the forefront of the fight for equal opportunity in the workplace.

          To the career EEOC employees watching or listening to this meeting, thank you for your dedication to the EEOC's critical mission, especially in light of the government shutdown.  When the shutdown began, I was serving as a career prosecutor, so I understand the challenges facing those of you working on the front lines.  I look forward to partnering with you and my fellow commissioners to make advancements that build on the EEOC's successes and honor its history.

          I also specifically want to thank all of the staff whose tremendous effort went into preparing for today's meeting, and I look forward to discussing the important matter on the agenda today.  Thank you.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you so much.  All right.  With my first round, I will make a motion to adopt the rescission of commission voting procedures that is before the Commission.  Is there a second?

          COMMISSIONER PANUCCIO:  Yes, I second.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  For the record, I believe that that's Commissioner Panuccio seconding the motion.  Is that accurate?

          COMMISSIONER PANUCCIO:  Yes.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you.  Now that we have a motion on the floor, we'll move to discussion.  I'll begin the first round formally and then recognize my fellow commissioners.  The Executive Secretariat will control the timer with green, yellow, and red lights to help us stay on track with our discussion timing, as well as notes in the chat for those online about the timing.

          Turning to my first round, the purpose of the proposed rescission order is to rescind the Commission's procedures for considering and voting on voted items, which were adopted at the 11th hour of the Biden administration on January 3rd of 2025.  Yes, that's two weeks before the end of the term by commission vote.

          Prior to that vote, including for the entirety of the Biden administration, such voting procedures solely had been communicated in memorandum from former chairs and executive orders.  Again, that is the state of affairs under which Democrat former chair, Charlotte Burrows, operated for the entirety of the Biden administration, except for the last two weeks or so.

          Rescinding of the procedures will return control voting procedures to the Chair consistent with a longstanding historical practice, as well as the well-recognized power of the Chair to control the Commission's agenda.  In Section 705 of Title VII, Congress provided, quote, the chairman shall be responsible on behalf of the Commission for the administrative operations of the Commission and shall appoint such officers, agents, attorneys, administrative law judges, and employees as he deems necessary, end quote.

          Considerable commission practice over an extensive period of time, including, as noted, all but two weeks of former Chair Burrows' tenure during the Biden administration, indicates that the administrative authority of the Chair includes the Chair controlling, among other things, one, the timing agenda of the Commission meetings, two, the submission of drafted items to the Commission for approval, including whether and when to submit such items, and three, the operations of the Office of the Executive Secretariat, including the processes for governing the circulation of and voting on such items.

          In short, the motion pending will permit a return to historical precedent, essentially return to the practice of prior chairs, including Chair Burrows and before her, Republican Chair Dhillon, during the first Trump administration.  As chair, I am committed to providing an orderly process and a transparent process for the consideration of matters to be voted on by the Commission.

          Should the rescission order be adopted today by majority vote of the Commission at today's meeting, I anticipate issuing a new memorandum later today or shortly thereafter with similar procedures to those adopted by recent former chairs in their prior memoranda.  And in fact, both of my fellow commissioners have received a copy of that draft memoranda, which I assume will be substantially similar to the draft that they've previously received.  So they are well aware of the content of that information.  There will be no absence in terms of an orderly process for us voting on voted items.

          A particular note as forecast by Commissioner Kotagal, I do anticipate returning to the prior practice set forth and former chair memoranda, again, including memoranda that governed during the Biden administration, that the Chair has both the discretion to exclude a matter from a particular meeting agenda, as well as the discretion to deny an agenda request entirely.

          In considering agenda, whether to grant an agenda request, I would consider the urgency of the matter, the availability of the commissioners for a meeting, the length of the meeting, other matters to be considered at the meeting, and any other factors I deem pertinent.  Subject to those considerations, I intend to grant agenda votes whenever feasible, including what should be the case in the vast majority of situations.

          And as I've committed in writing to both of my fellow commissioners and will adopt in the memoranda that I will set forth in the spirit of good faith and collegiality, I am committed to cooperatively working with my colleagues in the Commission in the future in an attempt to avoid the need to deny an agenda vote at this point.  I anticipate that we'll have any number of meetings.

          While the substance of my anticipated chair memorandum will otherwise be similar in many respects to the existing voted on procedures, issuing these procedures via a chair's memorandum, as opposed to a voting on commission document, provide more flexibility for me to be able to set and adjust the procedures as needed in order to ensure the administrative operations of the Commission operate in the most efficient and effective manner possible.  The flexibility is consistent with the historical practice of the Commission.  Thank you.

          I'll now turn the floor over to Commissioner Kotagal for her discussion on this motion.

          COMMISSIONER KOTAGAL:  Thank you, Chair Lucas.  I had already mentioned that in 1973, the Commission approved that any individual commissioner could require that an item be considered at a commission meeting.  And, you know, that practice was honored for decades by both Republican and Democratic leadership.

          In 2020, however, then Chair Dhillon issued revised procedures for the circulation of documents to the Commission.  Of particular importance from my perspective was her unilateral reinterpretation of the agenda vote, eliminating the longstanding and bipartisan practice of requiring negotiation or a meeting before an agenda item could advance.

          Instead, under Chair Dhillon's interpretation, a commissioner's agenda vote was simply a request, which the Chair at her discretion could ignore.  Chair Dhillon did, in fact, decline to honor a few agenda votes, advancing matters without the benefit of fulsome discussion by the entire commission through a public meeting or through negotiation among the commissioners.

          Chair Lucas referenced Commissioner Burrows, then Chair Burrows' approach.  And while she did not submit the current voting procedures for a vote until late in her tenure, the procedures that we are being asked to rescind today are the ones she adhered to during the four years that she was chair.

          The procedures which I ask be submitted into the official record for the public include specified briefing periods and voting periods for proposed regulations, guidance documents, opinion letters, and litigation recommendations, all to ensure that commissioners have sufficient and knowable amount of time to consider draft documents, to conduct legal research, to ask questions, provide comments, negotiate with one another, and request revisions.

          These procedures also include the right to an agenda vote, stating that, quote, no matter that it is the subject of an agenda vote can advance or be adopted unless it is first approved by a majority of the commissioners at a formally noticed commission meeting or the commissioner who initially cast the agenda vote withdraws or changes their vote, end quote.

          Throughout her term, Chair Burrows always honored a commissioner's agenda vote, including those by then Commissioner Lucas, either by negotiating to resolve the matter, addressing the matter at a meeting, or withdrawing it.  Not once did she finalize a matter through the notation voting system without first resolving an agenda vote, consistent with the bipartisan nature and design of the Commission as envisioned by Congress.

          Under the proposed rescission, the Chair would have the unilateral discretion to set review and voting periods for significant documents and to disregard a commissioner's agenda vote.  And while I note in her draft memo detailing the procedures she intends to follow that she, as she just said, intends to grant agenda votes wherever feasible.  Once the current voting procedures are rescinded, however, there's no way for any commissioner to hold the Chair to this promise.

          The Chair has already indicated that she plans to rescind the Agency's enforcement guidance on harassment without public notice and comment, and to revise the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations.  If these voting procedures are rescinded, there's no guarantee that the public will hear the Commission deliberate at a meeting on changes to these critical worker protections.

          A vote to agenda is not a vote to veto, nor is it a vote to filibuster, and there are many options for a chair to address an agenda vote, as I've just discussed.  And if negotiation can't resolve the issue and the Chair does not wish to resolve it, she needs simply notice a meeting, which for an open meeting like this only requires a week's notice.

          We held 13 days in the first quarter of 2026 for possible commission meetings.  So even if I or Commissioner Panuccio decided to agenda a matter, it needn't delay commission consideration for very long.  In short, any such delay of the Chair's agenda would be marginal.

          From my perspective, this needn't be all or nothing.  Rather than approving a transfer of power from the commissioners to the Chair, a transfer that commissioners will not have the power to undo, why not take a wait and see approach?  We only recently regained quorum.  And while there have been 11 items put up for a vote, this is the only one that I have agendaed, despite my strong disagreement with, for example, the regulatory agenda.

          Commissioner Panuccio, if I use the agenda vote in a way that you believe to be dilatory, the current voting procedures could be rescinded at any point.  If they're rescinded now, they're gone, and neither of us will regain that power as commissioners.  To that end, I move to postpone consideration of the rescission of the Commission voting procedures for three months or a later time of the Chair's choosing.  Thank you.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you, Commissioner Kotagal.  Is there a second for the motion?  Hearing no second, the motion fails.  And we will turn to Commissioner Panuccio for her discussion.

          COMMISSIONER KOTAGAL:  I yield back the balance of my time.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you.

          COMMISSIONER PANUCCIO:  Thank you, Chair Lucas.  Listening to the discussion here, as the one commissioner who was not present on the Commission when these rules were adopted on January 3, 2025, something I'm having an issue with is the adoption of the current procedures during the lame-duck period.  Why weren't they adopted until the very last minute, the very last commission meeting of the prior administration?  They appear to be part of a last-minute effort to create new procedural barriers for the current chair.

          If the present voting procedures were the product of a good-faith attempt to codify custom and practice, as Commissioner Kotagal has indicated, what was done to engage the EEOC's minority caucus in their development?  To me, it seems convenient that the prior chair retained the power to veto agenda items per the rules adopted under Chair Dhillon until she discovered that she was going to become a lame duck.

          As Chair Lucas has noted, rescinding these voting procedures that were adopted in the 11th hour would return to historical precedent.  She has circulated draft procedures which hew closely to my understanding of the historical precedent and has been very transparent with us as far as how she would use these procedures in practice.  With that, I yield the remainder of my time.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you, Commissioner Panuccio.  I think at this point, we will go now to the second round of discussion, and I will go last.  And so we will have -- I will save my time primarily to go last, and we will go to Commissioner Kotagal for any response in her second round or any further actions that she deems fit and appropriate under the rules.  And then we'll turn to Commissioner Panuccio, and then I will conclude with my final response.  So, I will turn it back to Commissioner Kotagal for an additional five minutes, should she choose.

          COMMISSIONER KOTAGAL:  Thanks, Chair Lucas.  And thanks, Commissioner Panuccio, for your thoughts.  You know, from my perspective, had Chair Burrows submitted the January 2025 procedures for a vote when I first joined the Commission in 2023, I would have supported them.  As a commissioner, I believe that under our statute, each of us has the authority to agenda an item.

          I also want to note, again, that although the procedures weren't voted until January 2025, they are the ones that we operated under throughout Chair Burrows' four-year term.  I've already noted, of course, that Chair Burrows always honored the agenda vote, despite the fact that her agenda votes were not always honored by Chair Dhillon.

          I'll also note that the point that I made a moment earlier, that according to Chair Lucas's draft memo that we've both seen detailing the procedures that she intends to follow, she intends to grant agenda votes wherever feasible.  I think I come back to the same problem however, which is that once these voting procedures are rescinded, there is no way for any commissioner to hold the Chair to this promise, and there's no way for an individual commissioner or, in fact, any group of commissioners that doesn't include the Chair to reinstate the current voting procedures or the agenda vote, as the Chair controls what documents are submitted for Commission consideration.

          So, I have one additional proposal that I'd like to make.  Rather than fully rescind the procedures, let us temporarily suspend them for three months.  This would allow Chair Lucas to use her discretion in granting or denying agenda votes and would allow both myself and Commissioner Panuccio to observe how the Chair uses this discretion.

          If at the end of those three months we take no issue with how the Chair has exercised her discretion, the current voting procedures could be rescinded then or suspended for another period of time.  If, however, there is a concern with how the Chair has exercised her discretion, the suspension would naturally expire and the current voting procedures, along with our right to agenda a matter, would return.

          And to that end, therefore, I move to amend the rescission of procedures for Commission consideration of voting matters to instead be a temporary suspension of voting procedures for Commission consideration of voting matters.

          Specifically, I move to strike the word rescission from the title of the document and replace it with temporary suspension.  To strike the word rescind in the first sentence and replace it with temporarily suspend, to insert to the end of the first sentence until April 14, 2026, at which point the suspension of the procedures for commissioner consideration of voted matters approved by the Commission on January 3, 2025, will end and these procedures will again apply to the Commission and the Office of the Chair.  And to strike the second paragraph in its entirety.

          For your convenience, I have a clean and redlined version of the document showing all of these proposed changes which I will email right now to Ray Windmiller, Chair Lucas, and Commissioner Panuccio.  And I believe that my Chief of Staff has circulated in the room there hard copy of that.  So that is my motion.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you for your motion.  Is there a second for the motion?

          CROSSTALK:  Of course not.  Blondie doesn't care.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  We may have some crosstalk by someone who is not with me present and speaking.  Do I have a second to the motion?  Hearing no second, we will return to Commissioner Kotagal for any additional time.  Commissioner Kotagal.

          COMMISSIONER KOTAGAL:  Thanks.  I'm disappointed, obviously, that what I think is a sensible wait and see approach has been rejected.  While I would have approved the temporary suspension of the Commission voting procedures, I cannot in good conscience support the permanent rescission of my ability and my responsibility to agenda items and have them discussed at a meeting of the entire Commission for the benefit of the public.  I thank the staff of the Agency for your hard work in pulling this meeting together, and I yield back the balance of my time.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you.  I'll turn now to Commissioner Panuccio.

          COMMISSIONER PANUCCIO:  Thank you, Chair Lucas.  And thank you, Commissioner Kotagal, for your response on those different points that I had raised.  One final point that I'd like to make, it seems as though the Chair's ability to at times determine what is or is not on the agenda has really been vilified.

          But if we think about it in a practical matter, there's a reason why historically Chairs have retained this power.  And part of that reason I have already seen during my short time on the Commission, and that is because sometimes unexpected things occur.  And there are deadlines from other agencies.  By law, we have certain deadlines that we have to achieve.  And so, for example, if something unexpected, like a government shutdown that prevents the lion share of our employees from working for weeks on end, can really have a detrimental impact on the Agency's ability to execute its functions.

          And so, in those kind of extreme circumstances, it's important and necessary for the Chair to have the discretion to be able to execute the Agency's mission.  Chair Lucas has circulated a draft to us and made commitments to us about the way that she would be very careful in exercising this power.  And I think, as a collegial body, we need to go on good faith and working together as a body and understanding that all of us on this commission truly value the opportunity to discuss these important matters with the public like we are at this meeting today.

          This administration is loud and proud about what it is.  There is no attempt to forward policy matters in the dark of night.  And I am confident that this chair will not be using her discretion to do things secretly or silently.  We are proud of the work that we are doing here at the EEOC.  Thank you.  I yield the rest of my time.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you, Commissioner Panuccio.  And I'll now conclude my last discussion round.  I do want to start to state for the record that I am disappointed by the crosstalk.  And while I don't know who is responsible for that, any effort to denigrate any member of the commission, including Commissioner Panuccio, is disrespectful and unacceptable.

          And I would also note that elections have consequences, and it is entirely appropriate for a majority, including a Republican majority, to exercise its powers consistent with what the Republican majority deems necessary to implement the administration priorities.  We have been charged by the President and Congress to execute a robust civil rights agenda, and we are going to be moving through a lot of items.  We will do so transparently, but we will do so efficiently.

          And the idea that only Democrats are able to exercise power is preposterous.  This is going to be a Republican majority that will use its majority thoughtfully, but also it will exercise its authority.  And it's entirely appropriate and reasonable for Commissioner Panuccio to choose to not second if she chooses so that we can proceed with the agenda set before us.

          Second, I do want to, you know, make clear part of the reason why it is necessary to retain flexibility to deny an agenda vote.  And that is specifically because prior commissioners, including then Commissioner Charlotte Burrows, chose to play quorum games.  And this is not the first commissioner who has done that.  Other commissioners in the past have chosen to play quorum games and have agendaed items and then been unavailable to me.

          So while I have every expectation that that will not be the case by any members on this commission, I do not know who will be in a present form of commission.  We will hopefully continue to have additional members.  And I think it is important to preserve the authority of the Chair to prevent that kind of bad behavior that could arise in the future by unforeseen events.

          There's also situations where good faith may occur, but because of unforeseen events, issues may get challenging for someone to go to participate in a meeting, but nonetheless, something must move given urgent circumstances.  So there are a variety of reasons why we may need to move forward.  I hope that those will be extraordinarily rare.

          Again, I am committed, as I've said in the public, as well as what I've said in writing to my fellow commissioners, in which I will memorialize them in a memorandum, to granting agenda votes wherever possible.

          As Commissioner Panuccio alluded, I am committed to transparency.  The entire Trump administration is committed to transparency.  And if Commissioner Kotagal wishes to have any number of meetings for the next several months on any number of the large policy items that I anticipate that we'll be dealing with, I will happily have them provided that we can find time to do all of those, and I hope and anticipate that we will.

          So the public should anticipate that if that is her wish, we will be having any number of meetings.  And I look forward to the public observing those.  We will be executing the President's agenda.  We will be executing the Republican agenda that is set forth for us.  We will not be dilly-dallying and we are going to be charging forward with that, which is entirely appropriate given the electoral results.

          With that, I am going to yield back the remainder of my time and conclude my discussion rounds.  And now the discussion is concluded.  I will call the question for a vote.  The motion is to adopt the rescission of Commission voting procedures as presented.  We will go for a roll call vote for the purposes of the record.  Commissioner Kotagal, how do you vote?

          COMMISSIONER KOTAGAL:  I vote no.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Commissioner Panuccio, how do you vote?

          COMMISSIONER PANUCCIO:  I vote yes.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  And I vote yes.  The motion to adopt rescission of the Commission voting procedures is approved by a vote of 2:1, Commissioner Panuccio and Chair Lucas voting yes and Commissioner Kotagal voting no.

          The second item on our agenda is the resolution concerning Chair and Commissioner roles regarding agency organizational changes.  While that matter was initially listed to be considered for approval in this meeting, it has in fact already been addressed by a notational vote, which concluded on January 13, 2026.  That matter was approved 2:1 with me and Commissioner Panuccio voting in favor, and Commissioner Kotagal opposed.

          Consistent with the EEOC's practice of posting monthly summaries of Commission votes, the EEOC will provide additional information about -- in its website regarding this vote and its outcome.  And we will not be considering the motion at this meeting because it has already been resolved by a notational vote.

          With no further matters listed on our agenda, I move to adjourn the meeting.  Do we have a second to adjourn?

          COMMISSIONER PANUCCIO:  I second.

          CHAIR LUCAS:  Thank you, Commissioner Panuccio.  With that, the meeting is adjourned.  Thank you very much.

          (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 9:36 a.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I hereby certify that the attached transcription is to the best of my belief and ability a true, accurate, and complete record of the above referenced proceedings as contained on the provided audio recording.

The document below was rescinded by vote of the Commission, and is for public record only.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PROCEDURES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF VOTED MATTERS

This document sets out the procedures of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission or the EEOC) for circulation of documents to the Commission for consideration and voting. These procedures are effective as of the date of adoption by the Commission and supersede all previous communications regarding voting procedures issued without a vote of the Commission that address the specific subjects discussed below.

1. Definitions
   For time periods described below, the term “business days” means that weekends and federal holidays will not count towards the time periods. If the term “days” is used, then all calendar days will count towards the period, except that any voting period that ends on a weekend or federal holiday will extend to the next business day. The period will begin running the day the item is circulated to all Commissioners, as long as the item was circulated before 1 p.m. Eastern Time.[1] For any items circulated after 1 p.m., the period will begin to run the following business day. 
    
2. Briefing Periods
   Determining the length of briefing periods is generally within the discretion of the Chair subject to the following guidelines, which help ensure that each member of the Commission has a reasonable time to consider pending matters consistent with their statutory duties.
   
   Major policy documents, such as notices of proposed rulemaking, guidance documents, opinion letters, and final rules, should be circulated to the Commission for a 30-day briefing period.  The purpose of the briefing period is to enable the Commissioners to review and consider the draft document; conduct any necessary legal research; ask questions of the submitting office; and provide comments or revisions for consideration by OCH, the submitting office, and other Commissioners before the document is submitted to the Commission for a final vote. During the briefing period, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the submitting office (if other than OLC), and other appropriate offices will be available to brief the Commissioners on the draft document and answer questions. 
   
   The Chair may designate a shorter or longer briefing period depending on the length and complexity of the matter and the current workload of the Commission.  Other factors the Chair may consider in determining an appropriate briefing period include, but are not limited to, whether the Commissioners have had a sufficient opportunity to review the document prior to the briefing period; circumstances that require the Commission to vote on the matter sooner than a 30-day briefing period would allow; or whether the Commission considered a substantially similar document during a previous briefing period, such as a final rule that largely adopts the language of the proposed rule. The Chair will provide a briefing period of no less than 14 days when a major policy document is circulated to the Commission for the first time, and no less than 5 business days for a later re-circulation of a policy document longer than 10 pages, unless there have been no substantive changes since the initial circulation.  These circulation periods may be shortened, however, with unanimous agreement of the Commission that a shorter time period is appropriate.
   
   Items that are not major policy documents generally will not have a separate briefing period, but rather a single “consideration” period during which the Commission will consider and act on the matter, whether through Commission vote or notice and hold procedures. These items include Commission resolutions related to simple administrative matters, litigation recommendations, amicus curiae recommendations, federal sector decisions, subpoena determinations, and all other items that are not major policy documents. 
    
3. Items in the Notation Voting System (NVS)
   The Chair determines whether and when items are submitted or withdrawn from the Notation Voting System (NVS) for Commission consideration. Sponsoring offices that have a matter for Commission consideration should submit the proposed items and supporting materials to the Office of the Executive Secretariat. Offices that have a time-sensitive matter requiring Commission approval are encouraged to notify OCH as soon as they are aware of the matter.
   
   All items in NVS will close at 6 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the voting period or, for notice and hold matters, the last day of the consideration period, except for amicus curiae recommendations which close at 11 a.m. on the last day of the consideration period. Items placed in NVS will be subject to either a notation vote in which all Commissioner votes are recorded or a notice and hold procedure, pursuant to which the item is circulated for a certain number of calendar days or business days, and is considered approved if no Commissioner places a hold on the matter before the circulation period expires.  If a hold is placed, the Chair has discretion thereafter to submit the matter to the Commission for a formal vote. The Commission will post results of Commission votes every month on EEOC’s public website.[2]
    
   1. Notation Voting Procedures
      For notation votes, Commissioners have the option to approve, disapprove, agenda the item, recuse, or abstain from the vote, with the exception that motions regarding whether to close a Commission meeting to the public are not subject to an agenda vote.  An “agenda” vote is a vote to request Commission consideration of the item at a public or closed Commission meeting.  No matter that is the subject of an agenda vote can advance or be adopted unless it is first approved by a majority of the Commissioners at a formally noticed Commission meeting, or the Commissioner who initially cast the agenda vote withdraws or changes their vote, or departs the Commission, and the matter is approved by a majority of the Commissioners. If a Commissioner votes to agenda an item, the Chair will consider including that item on the agenda of the next Commission meeting. The Chair has the discretion to exclude the matter from a meeting agenda. In considering whether to include an item on a meeting agenda, the Chair will consider the length of the meeting, other matters to be considered at the meeting, and any other factors the Chair deems pertinent.  
      
      Agenda votes placed by a member of the Commission will remain in place unless the item receives a vote at a Commission meeting noticed in accordance with the Sunshine Act, the item is withdrawn from consideration in NVS, or the Commissioner who initially cast the agenda vote withdraws or changes their vote or departs the Commission. If a Commissioner withdraws or changes their agenda vote or departs the Commission, the remaining Commissioners will have the opportunity to re-vote or be provided notice and an opportunity to change their vote.  Commissioners retain the option to approve, disapprove, recuse, abstain, or agenda items that are withdrawn from consideration and then later resubmitted in NVS.
       
      1. Major Policy Documents
         After the briefing period ends, OCH and OLC (or other sponsoring offices) will consider and incorporate feedback from other Commissioners to the extent possible and as approved by the Chair. The item will then be placed into NVS, generally for a 5-business day voting period, although the Chair can select a longer or shorter period based on the same factors described above in section II. If a policy document is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after Commission approval and OMB requests substantive changes to the document, the document will be recirculated to allow the Commission to vote on the modified document. The length of the voting period on the modified document will depend on, among other factors, the length of the document and the extent of the revisions.
          
      2. Litigation Recommendations
         Those litigation recommendations that are subject to a Commission vote are generally circulated for a 10-business day consideration period, subject to an extension by the Chair. If the vote is not unanimous during this first consideration period, the item will be recirculated for an additional 3-business day consideration period. A Commissioner only needs to re-vote if they are changing the vote they cast during the initial consideration period; otherwise, their prior vote will be recorded automatically again on the second round. Litigation recommendations are the only items that are recirculated if the vote is not unanimous. The litigation recommendation will be approved if, at the end of the 3-business day consideration period, a majority of the Commission has approved it. The Office of General Counsel may withdraw a litigation recommendation at any point during the consideration or voting period(s).
          
      3. Other Items
         Other items that are subject to a notation vote will generally be circulated for a 5-business day consideration period, subject to the discretion of the Chair. This includes resolutions dealing with administrative or organizational matters, contracts or agreements that require Commission approval, or any other matters that are not major policy documents or litigation recommendations.
   2. Notice and Hold
      Items circulated under notice and hold procedures do not require Commissioners to record a vote. A Commissioner must place a hold on the item to prevent its approval. The Chair can decide to convert any notice and hold item to a notation vote either before or after a Commissioner places a hold. The Commissioner(s) who place(s) a hold can work with the sponsoring office to attempt to address his or her concerns. However, a revised item will not be placed into NVS without the Chair’s concurrence.
      
      Commissioners who place holds on items may also request a notation vote on the matter, and the Chair will decide whether a notation vote will take place. If a notation vote is held for any notice and hold item, the item will generally be circulated for a 5-business day consideration period, but the period could be longer or shorter if circumstances require. If a hold is placed on an item and then released, and no other Commissioners have a hold on the item, the item will be approved at 6 p.m. Eastern Time on the date the hold is released or at the end of the voting period, whichever is later. If an item originally designated as “notice and hold” is subsequently moved to a notation vote by the Chair, any Commissioner has the option of voting to agenda the item, subject to the parameters described in Section II.A. above.
      
      The following items will be subject to notice and hold procedures for the time periods specified.
       
      1. Federal Sector Decisions
         Federal sector decisions that are subject to consideration by the Commission will generally be circulated for a 10-business day notice and hold period.
          
      2. Subpoena Determinations
         Subpoena determinations will generally be circulated for a 5-business day notice and hold period.
          
      3. Amicus Curiae Recommendations
         Pursuant to the Revised Procedures for Commission Approval of Amicus Curiae Participation (Amicus Procedures), the Executive Secretariat shall circulate an Office of General Counsel (OGC) amicus recommendation to the Commissioners immediately upon receipt or as soon as possible thereafter. The default consideration period of an amicus recommendation is three business days.  If court deadlines allow it, OGC will indicate that a longer consideration period is appropriate.  In cases of emergency, OGC will consult with the Chair to set a shorter consideration period, but no less than one business day.
         
         As mentioned above, the consideration period for amicus recommendations ends at 11 a.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the consideration period. The Amicus Procedures dictate the process for placing a hold and resolving holds by notation vote.
   3. Commissioner Charges
      Commissioner charges that are generated by an EEOC field office are generally circulated by the Executive Secretariat to one Commissioner at a time for a 20-business day review period on a rotating basis until either a Commissioner approves the charge or all Commissioners have had the opportunity to review it, whichever occurs first. The review period may be extended, for another five business days, upon a Commissioner’s request for additional time to review. During the review period, the Commissioner can decide to sign or decline to sign the charge. If a Commissioner declines to sign the charge, the Executive Secretariat will inform the sponsoring district office that a Commissioner declined the charge. The district office can then decide to withdraw the charge or request that the Executive Secretariat submit it to the next Commissioner in the rotation for consideration.

[1] For amicus curiae recommendations this will be 11 a.m. Eastern.

[2] See Commission Votes | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.