![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Your comment was submitted successfully!
Apr. 2nd, 2015 06:16 pmComment Tracking Number: [redacted]
Your comment may be viewable on Regulations.gov once the agency has reviewed it. This process is dependent on agency public submission policies/procedures and processing times. Use your tracking number to find out the status of your comment.
Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Document Type: Rulemaking
Title: Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity
Document ID: EEOC-2015-0005-0001
Comment:
The EEOC?s own data demonstrates the separate administrative process for Federal employees has outlived its usefulness. Federal employees, if they believe they are victims of discrimination, should use the same legal services available to the private sector.
The EEOC?s budget applied to these operations is evidence that a majority of filings are from non-meritorious cases:
[URL REMOVED]
Per [URL REMOVED]
"The EEOC also secured $22.5 million in monetary relief for charging parties through litigation, and $74 million in monetary relief for Federal employees and applicants."
The costs of the operations are greatly understated when the EEOC requires each Agency to maintain full civil rights staff, hold numerous diversity presentations at least annually, conduct training at least annually, litigate frivolous cases to prevent sanctions, and finance investigations of all complaints regardless of merit. Even arguing about deterrent value, it?s difficult to justify a budget that nets so little compared to the direct costs taxpayers; less so if the real costs of compliance were all included.
The >96% Agency-favorable rate of hearing decisions combined with the 43% rate of filings based on ?retaliation for prior EEO activity,? indicate the system is burdened with repeat filers of a frivolous nature that are a waste of taxpayer dollars and has outlived its usefulness.
See [URL REMOVED]
Further proof the claims of discrimination lack merit is the telling statistic that the 3rd most accused-of-discrimination Agency is the EEOC itself. See [URL REMOVED]
The administrative burden on the Agency of investigating frivolous complaints is greater than the benefit to the public given the current data. There is no reason to have a separate administrative process, at taxpayer expense, with such small findings of discrimination in the Federal workforce. If nothing else, the complaint process applied to the Federal sector should not include investigations and instead use the hearing discovery process for the parties to develop their cases.
If the administrative process were retained, the EEOC could do counseling and merit determinations themselves, granting objectivity and reducing other Agency budgets. Then, if a claim appears to lack merit at the onset as judged by the EEOC, a dismissal from the administrative process and right to file private suit should be issued to preserve the litigant?s rights without delay while saving taxpayer burdens of financing frivolous filings. Another option would be to allow Agencies to dismiss cases which appear frivolous, continue the right to appeal to OFO, while granting complainants the option to take their case directly to civil action in court.
The hearing discovery process is already designed for non-attorneys who routinely use this service. Perhaps if more Complainants had to plead their claims with specificity, and cite evidence to back up those claims, there would be fewer claims at taxpayer expense. The investigations, combined with the time and expense to conduct the same, appears to be frequently used to harass supervisors and extort settlement funds based on the expense of the process rather than due to merits of the underlying cause.
As the current process stands, a 20 minute phone call from an angry employee can leave managers and civil rights staff working for 8-40 hours. Checking the ?formal complaint? box can then cost thousands of dollars and hundreds of work hours more. The burden on the innocent employees and taxpayers is tremendous, while the dishonest employee who harasses the Agency through abuse of the EEO process loses nothing, as his or her 2 hours on the phone was also paid for by the taxpayers.
As the EEOC?s statistics make clear, most claims are frivolous. In any other legal forum, settlement is based largely on the expense of litigation even when the defendant is likely to prevail - the Federal workforce is no exception. If Federal employees feel they are victims of discrimination, they should utilize the same resources as private company employees.
The EEOC should be proud of the diverse Federal workforce with its low rates of discriminatory acts, and now phase out the administrative hearing process and other related expenses as unduly burdensome. The expensive imposition of routine diversity presentations, free investigations, and extensive incestuous litigation by repeat filers who use the EEO complaint process to harass government Agencies for the purpose of extorting money, has outlived its usefulness. The Federal workforce should be due the same rights, no more and no less, than the privates sector.
Your comment may be viewable on Regulations.gov once the agency has reviewed it. This process is dependent on agency public submission policies/procedures and processing times. Use your tracking number to find out the status of your comment.
Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Document Type: Rulemaking
Title: Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity
Document ID: EEOC-2015-0005-0001
Comment:
The EEOC?s own data demonstrates the separate administrative process for Federal employees has outlived its usefulness. Federal employees, if they believe they are victims of discrimination, should use the same legal services available to the private sector.
The EEOC?s budget applied to these operations is evidence that a majority of filings are from non-meritorious cases:
[URL REMOVED]
Per [URL REMOVED]
"The EEOC also secured $22.5 million in monetary relief for charging parties through litigation, and $74 million in monetary relief for Federal employees and applicants."
The costs of the operations are greatly understated when the EEOC requires each Agency to maintain full civil rights staff, hold numerous diversity presentations at least annually, conduct training at least annually, litigate frivolous cases to prevent sanctions, and finance investigations of all complaints regardless of merit. Even arguing about deterrent value, it?s difficult to justify a budget that nets so little compared to the direct costs taxpayers; less so if the real costs of compliance were all included.
The >96% Agency-favorable rate of hearing decisions combined with the 43% rate of filings based on ?retaliation for prior EEO activity,? indicate the system is burdened with repeat filers of a frivolous nature that are a waste of taxpayer dollars and has outlived its usefulness.
See [URL REMOVED]
Further proof the claims of discrimination lack merit is the telling statistic that the 3rd most accused-of-discrimination Agency is the EEOC itself. See [URL REMOVED]
The administrative burden on the Agency of investigating frivolous complaints is greater than the benefit to the public given the current data. There is no reason to have a separate administrative process, at taxpayer expense, with such small findings of discrimination in the Federal workforce. If nothing else, the complaint process applied to the Federal sector should not include investigations and instead use the hearing discovery process for the parties to develop their cases.
If the administrative process were retained, the EEOC could do counseling and merit determinations themselves, granting objectivity and reducing other Agency budgets. Then, if a claim appears to lack merit at the onset as judged by the EEOC, a dismissal from the administrative process and right to file private suit should be issued to preserve the litigant?s rights without delay while saving taxpayer burdens of financing frivolous filings. Another option would be to allow Agencies to dismiss cases which appear frivolous, continue the right to appeal to OFO, while granting complainants the option to take their case directly to civil action in court.
The hearing discovery process is already designed for non-attorneys who routinely use this service. Perhaps if more Complainants had to plead their claims with specificity, and cite evidence to back up those claims, there would be fewer claims at taxpayer expense. The investigations, combined with the time and expense to conduct the same, appears to be frequently used to harass supervisors and extort settlement funds based on the expense of the process rather than due to merits of the underlying cause.
As the current process stands, a 20 minute phone call from an angry employee can leave managers and civil rights staff working for 8-40 hours. Checking the ?formal complaint? box can then cost thousands of dollars and hundreds of work hours more. The burden on the innocent employees and taxpayers is tremendous, while the dishonest employee who harasses the Agency through abuse of the EEO process loses nothing, as his or her 2 hours on the phone was also paid for by the taxpayers.
As the EEOC?s statistics make clear, most claims are frivolous. In any other legal forum, settlement is based largely on the expense of litigation even when the defendant is likely to prevail - the Federal workforce is no exception. If Federal employees feel they are victims of discrimination, they should utilize the same resources as private company employees.
The EEOC should be proud of the diverse Federal workforce with its low rates of discriminatory acts, and now phase out the administrative hearing process and other related expenses as unduly burdensome. The expensive imposition of routine diversity presentations, free investigations, and extensive incestuous litigation by repeat filers who use the EEO complaint process to harass government Agencies for the purpose of extorting money, has outlived its usefulness. The Federal workforce should be due the same rights, no more and no less, than the privates sector.
