NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EEOC LOCALS No 216, AFGE, AFL-CIO

Office of the President

c/o Denver District Office, EEOC

303 East 17^th Avenue, Suite 410, Denver, Colorado 80203

Tele: (303) 866-1337          Fax: (303) 736-3964

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                      Contact: Gabrielle Martin

 October 31, 2011                                                                                                                 (303) 725-9079

EEOC REFUSING TO PROTECT ITS OWN EMPLOYEES FROM RETALIATION

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) refuses to protect employees participating in its internal mediation program, RESOLVE, from retaliation.  Gabrielle Martin, President of the National Council of EEOC Locals, No. 216, AFGE/AFL-CIO, (“the Council”), which represents EEOC’s employees, states, “The EEOC should have used this October, National Mediation Month, to clearly provide our employees the same protection from retaliation that it enforces for others.  To be a model employer, EEOC must have the best and strongest non-retaliation provisions.  At this point, it has none.”

The EEOC enforces this nation’s laws that protect employees from discrimination in the workplace, including retaliation.  EEOC launched its internal alternative dispute resolution program, RESOLVE, program in 2003.  The RESOLVE handbook, unlike most workplace programs, fails to mention retaliation and its boilerplate settlement agreement has no anti-retaliation provision.  “It is incredible that the EEOC demands non-retaliation provisions for private and Federal sector employees, but refuses to include such provisions in its own internal RESOLVE mediation program.” 

According to Martin, just this summer, the EEOC sponsored a Harvard evaluation of RESOLVE to examine in part why use of the program has fallen off in recent years.  The evaluation noted that for focus groups participants the “Main concern is that there would be retaliation.” Martin says, “Chair Berrien is losing any benefits to be gained from the program by failing to protect participants.  Why, when we are supposed to be looking for government efficiencies, is the EEOC undermining a program funded with tax dollars.”

EEOC’s refusal to include anti-retaliation in its boilerplate settlement language contradicts a commitment broadcast to staff in a 2005 EEOC newsletter:

-- Question: If I bring a dispute to the RESOLVE Program for mediation, am I protected from retaliation?

-- Answer: Yes. . . .

The good news is that the Chair is said to be aware of and studying the retaliation issue.  “The bad news,” Martin states, “is that while a decision is pending from the Chair, managers refuse to include anti-retaliation provisions in individual settlement agreements.  The Chair’s failure to reiterate the non-retaliation protections during her study has sent a very negative message heard round EEOC.”

Martin calls upon the EEOC Chair to settle this issue, once and for all.    Martin urges, “There is no reason to dither in sending a strong message that it is not okay for any employer to retaliate.

                                                                       # # #