Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

OFCCP promises clear guidance and consistency, laying out a program of carrots and sticks

By

In his first two speeches after taking over as Acting Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Craig Leen emphasized a commitment to the rule of law, promised to provide contractors with clear guidance and transparent enforcement processes, offered incentives for voluntary compliance, and outlined plans to identify and audit government contractors that are ignoring their obligations.

His speeches came at the beginning and end of a four-day Industry Liaison Group National Conference held in Anaheim, California that was attended by HR compliance professionals and officials from the Department of Labor (DOL), OFCCP, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Although the conference included presentations from industry experts, the highlight for many was the opportunity to hear directly from the OFCCP, including its new acting director.

Mr. Leen opened the conference with a keynote address focusing on his goals for the OFCCP, including transparency, certainty, efficiency, and recognition. Mr. Leen highlighted OFCCP’s recent Directive 2018-01, which requires a Predetermination Notice (PDN) in all cases with preliminary individual and systemic discrimination findings. According to Mr. Leen, contractors can expect meaningful, good-faith conciliation.

Additionally, he noted that the OFCCP will no longer engage in fishing expeditions with information requests during a compliance evaluation. Instead, OFCCP compliance officers must have specific reasons for a request and be able to explain the need for the information upon request.

Importantly, in the information request context, Mr. Leen explicitly acknowledged that contractors will be given reasonable time to respond and that the age of “false deadlines” to show authority was over.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=727378

Employers required to file EEO-1 reports by Mar. 31st — Does this apply to you?

By

Private employers with 100 employees or more and federal contractors with 50 employees or more and $50,000 in contract(s) are required to submit and certify an EEO-1 Report with the Joint Reporting Committee, comprised of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), not later than March 31, 2018.

The EEO-1 Report collects data on the race, ethnicity, and sex of workers, by job category.  The employment data used for the 2017 EEO-1 report should be collected using a payroll period in October, November, or December 2017, the fourth quarter of calendar year 2017.  This payroll period is what the EEOC refers to as the 2017 “workforce snapshot period.”

Employers submit EEO-1 reports via the EEO-1 Online Filing System on the EEOC’s website or will utilize this portal to electronically transmit a data file containing the EEO-1 data.  This website is accessible at: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/index.cfm.

Questions about this requirement and the process may be submitted via email to: eeo1.suggestionbox@eeoc.gov.

The EEOC had planned to collect additional information this year, including aggregate W-2 pay and hours-worked data.  However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stayed the additional requirements pending OMB’s review.

 

 

 

New EEO-1 form aims to collect more employment data

By

eeocNo sooner did employers submit their 2016 EEO-1 filings, than a new EEO-1 form requiring more detailed information was approved by the EEOC.

Generally, federal contractors and private employers with 100 or more employees are required to complete the well-established EEO-1 report each year. Employers currently provide employment data that identifies by job category demographic information about race, gender and ethnicity. The old EEO-1 form can be viewed here. The revised EEO-1 form now requires that employers also provide the aggregate of employees’ pay, as reflected in Box 1 of W-2 forms, by job category and broken down by race, gender, and ethnicity. You can view a copy of the new form here.

The EEOC announced its original proposal on January 29, 2016. A public hearing was conducted on March 16, 2016, and public comment was available until April 1, 2016. Hundreds of public written comments were submitted expressing concerns with the revised form.  Predominately, employers expressed concern with the burden imposed by the new reporting requirements, the potential for unwarranted inferences of discrimination based on newly compiled employment data, and the efficacy of the new data as it relates to protecting against discrimination. Ultimately, the EEOC was not persuaded and chose to move forward with the changes to the EEO-1 form. However, the timeline for filing future EEO-1 forms has now been extended until March 31, so employers can utilize prior year W-2s to provide the pay data.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=540708

EEOC releases updates to proposed EEO-1 reporting revisions

By

EEOCAs anticipated, the EEOC has released updates to its proposed rule obligating certain employers and federal contractors who file annual EEO-1 reports to include employee pay data information in addition to already-required employee demographic data.

While the updated proposed rule would require the collection and reporting of the same general pay data information as initially proposed, the updated rule:

  • extends the due date for the first EEO-1 report to require this additional data from September 30, 2017 to March 31, 2018;
  • aims to simplify data collection by establishing a calendar year wage calculation period and moving the “workforce snapshot” period for purposes of counting employees to a pay period of the employer’s choice between October 1 and December 31 of the reporting year; and
  • provides guidance on reporting hours worked for exempt employees.

The updated proposed rule is subject to a 30-day comment period ending on August 15, 2016.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=509982

No accountability? 21% of federal agencies don’t submit EEO reports

By

Every year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission releases its annual report, informing the president and Congress of the state of equal-employment opportunity in the federal workforce. But critics say the annual report serves one other purpose: It magnifies what is currently wrong with the federal government’s EEO system.

The recently released 2009 report reveals a stunning lack of compliance, commitment and accountability by a number of agencies and agency leadership—especially when compared with the best practices being employed by The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity®.

Consider this sampling of numbers from EEOC’s latest 2009 report:

  • Only 79 percent of federal departments and agencies submitted Management Directive 715 (MD-715) reports. The reports detail agency employment by race, national origin, sex and disability and are required under law to be submitted, reviewed and approved annually by the EEOC, which is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination.
  • Only 61 percent of federal departments and agencies heads issued written policy statements, expressing their commitment to EEO and a workplace free of discriminatory harassment, despite an EEOC mandate that this statement “be issued at the beginning of their tenure [and] disseminated to all employees.”
  • Only 74 percent of agency EEO directors report directly to their agency head, despite a mandate that they do so.

So what happens to the 21 percent of agencies that do not submit MD-715 reports? Or the 39 percent of agency heads who did not issue written policy statements? Or the 26 percent of agencies that don’t have an EEO director reporting directly to the top person at a department?

“There is absolutely no accountability for those agencies who do not wish to comply with the regulations,” says Carol Dawson, president of EEO Guidance, a national consulting and training company based in Jeffersonville, Ind. “There is nobody doing anything about the percent that is not in compliance; there are no consequences whatsoever.”

In March, DiversityInc released the findings of its second annual DiversityInc Top Federal Agencies for Diversity list in Washington, D.C. The findings demonstrated that while participating federal agencies have made strides in ensuring that their workforces reflect the changing needs and faces of their constituents, they lagged far behind the DiversityInc Top 50 in a number of key areas of diversity management and representation, including:

  • Strategies used to promote and show commitment for diversity throughout the organization
  • Workforce and recruitment representation for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, women and people with disabilities
  • Communications about employee-development programs, such as employees and managers participating in employee-resource groups and in mentoring programs

DiversityInc will follow up with federal agencies on Nov. 9 with a program entitled “The Next Steps to Effective Diversity Management.” Expected speakers include John Robinson, chief diversity officer of the State Department, Cari Dominguez, former head of the EEOC, and chief diversity officers of several DiversityInc Top 50 companies. For information on this diversity event, click here.

Dawson worked at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance for 25 years, the agency responsible for ensuring that private-sector employers doing business with the federal government—specifically, all federal contractors that employ 50 or more employees and have government contracts of $50,000 or more—comply with the EEO laws and regulations requiring nondiscrimination.

She said the federal government does not tolerate the same kind of behavior within the private sector that it allows in its own ranks. “In private industry, we take them to court. We take their federal contracts away. We put their names out there. We make them miserable. They will suffer greatly if they are not in compliance with far stricter EEO laws,” Dawson says.

But while EEOC is charged with monitoring federal-agency compliance with EEO laws, it does not have the funds or the manpower to monitor what is arguably the largest employer in the United States—the federal government, she said.

Dawson likens the current system to a fox-watching-the-hen-house scenario. Unlike the private sector, federal agencies themselves are responsible for their own internal EEO compliance and for processing and investigating charges of discrimination filed against them by their own employees.

“Until the federal government removes internal compliance and enforcement from the agencies and places it in neutral hands [EEOC], nothing will change,” Dawson says. “The federal agencies must be held accountable, or there is no real need for the EEO regulations.”

Dexter Brooks, the director of federal-sector programs at the EEOC, acknowledges that lack of compliance with EEO guidance and mandates is a problem at a number of federal agencies and departments. “What is our enforcement mechanism? We issue this report to the president and Congress every year stating which agencies are in compliance because they actually control the agencies’ budgets and the way in which they are lead. So that is one way in which we try to seek compliance,” he says.  “Actually, it’s the primary way right now because we don’t have sanctioning authority.”

Brooks says the only time the EEOC can issue binding orders to an agency or department is when a deficiency manifests itself into an actual employee complaint.

He says the EEOC has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to “slightly strengthen” the way the EEOC enforces its mandates. “This is not something we take lightly,” he says.  “We are trying to get a full understanding of how far we can go to achieve compliance in federal agencies.”

Brooks says when the EEOC finds an agency or department failing to comply with a particular mandate or directive, “we note it as a deficiency and we give feedback to the EEO program and the agency head noting what we find as deficiencies.”

In its annual report, the EEOC also submits “tips” on how to have a more effective EEO program in the federal government. Brooks says another compliance mechanism is the actual complaint process, which he says is more reactive. “Employees who believe they have not received equal opportunities can file complaints of discrimination,” he adds. “We are trying to get agencies to do the proactive work before they see us on the reactive side, which is the complaint side.”

In fact, federal employees are filing more complaints alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability and reprisal. Federal employees filed 16,947 discrimination complaints in fiscal year 2009, 195 more than in 2008, according to a new EEOC report. The increase is smaller than the previous year’s increase: In 2008, there were 584 more discrimination complaints than in 2007.

The rise in 2009 over the previous year is not big, but it is significant because it represents the second year of an increase, reversing what has been a decade of steady declines. “We are watching this trend,” Brooks says.

Asked whether the rise in complaints could be related to the number of agencies and departments that are not complying with EEO guidance mandates, Brooks says he is not sure but “logically, it needs to be explored.”

“It makes sense that if you are not in compliance, you might have higher complaints,” he says. “That makes a lot of sense and it’s something we are going to be studying and tracking.”

See also:

Key Findings From the EEOC Report

— By Sam Ali – Aug 27, 2010 – Diversity Inc. – http://diversityinc.com/article/8013/No-Accountability-21-of-Federal-Agencies-Dont-Submit-EEO-Reports/

Annual EEO and VETS forms submitals required of many employers and contractors

By

Many private companies and federal contractors and subcontractors are subject to federal reporting requirements involving employment data.  The deadline to file federal EEO-1 and VETS-100/100A forms is September 30, 2010.  Here are the details on the requirements, including who is covered, and what must be done.

What is an EEO-1 Form?

The EEO-1 form is an annual report that categorizes employees based on ethnicity, race and gender, as well as by job category. The EEO-1 form uses data from any pay period in July, August or September of the filing year.

What is the VETS-100 Form?

The VETS-100 and VETS-100A forms are annual reports that track the employment and hiring of former military service members by job category and type of veteran, and use data from any pay period in July or August of the filing year. Additionally, the VETS-100 and VETS-100A forms contain a 12-month summary of information, dating back 12 months from the specific pay period selected.

Why are these forms important?

In addition to the legal requirement that they be completed, the forms are used by government agencies, such as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), to help select compliance evaluation targets and track employment patterns, and are used by plaintiffs in lawsuits. Thus, accuracy and timeliness in completing the forms is critical.

How do I get the employee information to prepare the forms?

The government recommends that employers request that applicants/employees voluntarily self-identify as to their racial/ethnic status. Federal contractors are required to request applicants to self-identify voluntarily concerning their veteran status.

Who must file the EEO-1 report? 

  • All private employers subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) with 100 or more employees, excluding, among others, state governments, Indian tribes and institutions of higher education.
  • Private employers with fewer than 100 employees if, together with related entities, the entire “single” enterprise employs 100 or more employees.
  • All federal government contractors (unless otherwise exempt) who are prime or first-tier subcontractors, with a contract/subcontract of $50,000 or more, and who employ 50 or more employees.
  • Certain financial institutions, regardless of the dollar value of the federal contract.

Who must file the VETS-100/100A reports?

Certain federal government contractors and subcontractors are subject to the VETS-100/100A filing requirements.

  • Federal government contractors and subcontractors with a contract of $25,000 or more, entered into before December 1, 2003 must file the VETS-100. However, if this contract has been modified since December 1, 2003 in the amount of $100,000 or more, the VETS-100A must be filed instead.
  • Federal government contractors and subcontractors with a contract of $100,000 or more, entered into on or after December 1, 2003 must file the VETS-100A. Depending on when the contracts were signed and the amount of the contracts, an employer may need to file both t?he VETS-100 and the VETS-100A.

How Do the Reports Cover Multiple Facilities?

A single-establishment employer must submit one EEO-1 and one VETS-100/100A report. Multi-establishment employers must submit multiple reports, which can be accomplished in a few different ways depending on the number of employees at each separate facility.

Where Do I Obtain More Information?

For more information about EEO-1 reporting, visit the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s website at http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/faq.cfm.

For more information about VETS-100 reporting, visit the U.S. Dept. of Labor wbsite at http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/fcp/main.htm.

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More