MINUTES
Notes on the No FEAR Coalition Meeting with Cari Dominguez, Chair, EEOC
The meeting started with Ms. Dominguez recalling the signing of the No FEAR Act in the oval office. She stated that the EEOC is commitment to the No FEAR Act.
The Coalition placed four requests on the table for discussion:
- to extend the public comment period for an additional 30-60 days
- to convene five public hearings across the country to enlist grass roots participation in the regulatory process. –
- establishment of a citizens advisory committee to oversee and review the public comments, and;
- to review and develop a guide to “best practices” particularly with a view to seeking disciplinary actions against discriminating managers.
On the first point, Ms. Dominguez after consultation with counsel said that she didn’t have any objections to extending the public comment period. On the second point, she agreed to consider our request for public hearings. I offered to place this request in a follow-up letter for a final decision. There did not seem to be any enthusiasm for the idea of a citizen’s advisory committee. On the last request, Ms. Dominquez stated that the EEOC was working closely with OPM to develop and understand best practices. It was noted that the issue of providing regulatory guidelines for disciplinary actions against managers falls within the purview of OPM regulations. I noted that the EEOC had issued the regulations past the presidential deadline of October 1, 2003 meaning that OPM and EEOC are not taking the law seriously.
Blair Hayes, (No FEAR Coalition - NFC) questioned the concept of a “interim final rule” and the implications of this process. Tim Hannapel (attorney, NTEU) discussed the sections of NO FEAR that focus on the notification and training sections. He stressed that EEOC should take an active role in OPM’s rule making process. In addition, he stressed that EEOC should be involved in the notification of rights for employees.
Kurt Vondrum (NTEU – Legislative Director) talked about how the EEO process is a contentious one and that EEOC training may be able to assist in decreasing the numbers of EEO complaints. Tim Hannapel said that because of the extensive time EEOC has taken to issue the regs, there could be an appearance that the agencies are not serious. Therefore, it was important for the EEOC and OPM to work together to craft the regulations. Dominguez agreed. She said that events beyond their control took place that delayed the issuance of the regulations. She stated that the EEOC has good relations with OPM (Coles-James). OPM has asked EEOC for assistance. She said that the “interim regulations” were simply posting housekeeping rules. She wanted to establish something as a base line. According to the Chair, EEOC encourages comments.
Arthuretta Martin, (Feds for Justice) asked a question about the effective date of the regulations, i.e., are the “interim regs - “interim” or are they “final”?) One of the EEOC attorneys said that the rule is final. This statement is clearly a contradiction but certainly underlines the hypocrisy of the process. He said that any changes will be prospective not retroactive. He said that Agencies must follow the rule effective 1/26. If the commission chooses to change the rule, any change will be prospective.
Dominguez said that heads of cabinet agencies have received copies of EEOC’s annual report to let them know how serious the administration is about EEO issues. She stressed that the No FEAR law is not a stand alone Act. She is interested in enforcing all of the Civil Rights statues.
I reiterated the Coalition request for public hearings in five cities across the country. I also re-emphasized the importance of establishing a citizens advisory committee for the regulatory process that was open and transparent. I also brought up the issue of disciplinary actions against discriminating managers. I stated that managers are not disciplined but promoted when they are named in discrimination suits. The Coalition brought to EEOC’s attention Sec. 204 of the statute requiring disciplinary guidelines.
Blair Hayes added, “what makes No Fear …No FEAR is the disciplinary portion of the law.
I stated that the Coalition would talk with congressional leaders, if necessary, about amending the law to clarify the intent of the law to take disciplinary actions against discriminating managers.
Arthuretta Martin raised the issue of an MOU with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that would allow the EEOC to refer cases to the OSC for discipline. This issue was discussed at a previous NAACP Task Force Meeting.
I mentioned that the regulations were clearly written from an agency perspective without input from “victims”. For example, agencies are not required, according to the “interim final” regs to include post amendments to the complaints, such as retaliation and harassment. Also, the counseling stage is not counted as apart of the EEO process. I mentioned that retaliation occurs as soon as employees file the informal papers during the counseling stage of the process. The regulations must capture this stage of the process.
The Coalition indicated that it would prepare formal comments for the Commission
Matthew Fogg, (Carcle, Department of Commerce, BIG) asked whether the EEOC had any role to play once a Federal Court makes a decision that discrimination occurred. Dominguez said no.
Dominguez said that she wanted to get something “out there” so the agencies could be in compliance with No FEAR. She said that she didn’t want to place too much emphasis on regulations, because they cannot replace sound management practices.
We had a short discussion of that point. Clearly, most Coalition members were in favor of strong regulations and didn’t place much value on voluntary concepts, such as “sound management practices."
Great thanks to Arthuretta Martin for the notes!!!!!!
Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
