SECTION 230 STUDY

Study of Laws, Regulations, and Procedures at

The General Accounting Office

The Government Printing Office

and The Library of Congress

Prepared by the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance 

Pursuant to Section 230 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 

(PL 104-1) 

December 31, 1996 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tab Page 

I. Executive Summary .................................................. i

II. Introduction ........................................................ 1

III. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Overview .......................................................... 7

General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 1980 ............................ 9

Anti-Discrimination Laws

C Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ............................... 13

C Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ......................... 19

C Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 .... 21

C Equal Pay Act of 1963 ............................................ 25

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1963 ................................... 31

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ....................................... 39

Occupational Safety and Health Act ..................................... 45

Labor-Management Relations -- Chapter 71, title 5, U.S.C. .................... 53

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ......................... 59

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ......... 63

Employee Polygraph Protection Act ..................................... 67

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Access Provisions) ............. 69

Conclusions ....................................................... 75

IV. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Overview ......................................................... 79

Anti-Discrimination Laws ............................................. 81

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1963 ................................... 91

- i -
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ....................................... 95

Occupational Safety and Health Act ..................................... 99

Labor-Management Relations -- Chapter 71, title 5, U.S.C. ................... 103

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ........................ 105

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ........ 109

Employee Polygraph Protection Act .................................... 113

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Access Provisions) ............ 115

Conclusions ...................................................... 117

V. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Overview ........................................................ 121

Anti-Discrimination Laws ............................................ 123

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1963 .................................. 129

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ...................................... 133

Occupational Safety and Health Act .................................... 139

Labor-Management Relations -- Chapter 71, title 5, U.S.C. ................... 145

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ........................ 147

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ........ 149

Employee Polygraph Protection Act .................................... 153

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Access Provisions) ............ 155

Conclusions ...................................................... 157

VI. APPENDICES 

Appendix A -- Section 230 of the Congressional Accountability Act 

of 1995, as amended ............................................. A-1

Appendix B -- Notice of Request for Information .......................... B-1

Appendix C -- Summary of Comments .................................. C-1

- ii -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Section 230 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) mandates a study of the 

application of the laws listed in section 230(b) to the General Accounting Office (GAO), 

Government Printing Office (GPO) and Library of Congress (the Library) (referred to collectively 

as the instrumentalities).1 Originally, section 230 directed the Administrative Conference of the 

United States (ACUS) to conduct the study but, in connection with the dissolution of ACUS in 

November of 1995, the law was amended to transfer responsibility for the study to the Board of 

Directors of the Office of Compliance.2 

The study is organized into three sections which, as required by section 230(a), review the 

application of laws, regulations, and procedures to each instrumentality and, as required under 

section 230(c), evaluate whether these rights, protections, and procedures (including 

administrative and judicial relief) are “comprehensive and effective.” Because the CAA does not 

define the phrase “comprehensive and effective,” the Board has found guidance in two other 

sections of the statute, as well as the legislative history, in determining what the phrase 

“comprehensive and effective” should be understood to mean. These sources all use the CAA as 

their benchmark, suggesting that “comprehensive and effective” in the section 230 context is also 

best understood in comparison to the CAA. 

Section 505 of the CAA directs the Judicial Conference of the United States to report on the 

application to the judicial branch of the eleven laws made applicable by the CAA, and to include 

any recommendations to grant to employees of the judicial branch rights, protections, procedures, 

and relief under those laws “that are comparable to those available to employees in the legislative 

branch under [the CAA].”3 This direction suggests a statutory interest in parity in the application 

of the eleven laws to agencies in the legislative and in the judicial branches. Additionally, section 

102(b)(2) requires the Board to report on whether other provisions of laws relating to 

employment and public access, in addition to those incorporated into the CAA, should be made 

applicable to the legislative branch. That the CAA separately requires the Board to make 

proposals about extensions of the CAA suggests that, for these purposes, the CAA is the 

appropriate point of comparison. 

The legislative history of section 230 also suggests using the CAA as the reference point. The 

section-by-section analysis placed in the record by Senator Grassley on behalf of himself and 

1 2 U.S.C. 1371.

2 Pub. L. No. 104-53, section 309, 109 Stat. 538 (November 19, 1995).

3 2 U.S.C. 1434.

- i -
Senator Lieberman makes clear their expectation that the report would use the CAA to evaluate 

comprehensiveness and effectiveness: “This study should evaluate not only the extent to which 

employees are provided the rights and protections of the laws made applicable to Congress in this 

act. But also whether they are as comprehensive and effective as those provided under this act.”1 

Similar views were expressed by committees of the House and Senate during the 103rd Congress 

in reports on bills similar to the CAA.2 Accordingly, for purposes of this 230(b) study, the Board 

has interpreted the phrase “comprehensive and effective” to mean comprehensive and effective 

when compared with the rights, protections, procedures, and relief afforded under the CAA. 

In evaluating the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the rights, protections and procedures 

available to the instrumentalities, the Board reviewed the following key aspects of the current 

statutory and regulatory regimes: (1) the nature of the substantive rights and protections afforded 

to employees, both as guaranteed by statute and as applied by rules and regulations; (2) the 

adequacy of administrative processes, including: (a) adequate enforcement mechanisms for 

monitoring compliance and detecting and correcting violations, and (b) a fair and independent 

mechanism for informally resolving or, if necessary, investigating, adjudicating, and appealing 

disputes; (3) the availability and adequacy of judicial processes and relief; and (4) the adequacy of 

any process for issuing substantive regulations specific to an instrumentality, including proposal 

and adoption by an independent regulatory authority under appropriate statutory criteria. The 

Board’s purpose in doing so is to fully explicate the issues of concern in section 230(c). 

Section 230(c) also states that the study should “include recommendations for any improvements 

in regulations or legislation, including proposed regulatory or legislative language.” Section 

230(c) originally required ACUS to “prepare and complete the study and recommendations” and 

then “submit the study and recommendations to the Board.”3 The Board, in turn, was to 

“transmit such study and recommendations (with the Board’s comments)” to the instrumentalities 

and the Congress.4 Thus, the Board’s role as commentator was, quite literally, parenthetical. 

After the dissolution of ACUS, Congress transferred the responsibility for conducting the study 

and making recommendations from ACUS to the Board. The Board’s institutional role, 

functions, and resources are vastly different from those of ACUS and, therefore, these differences 

must necessarily reshape the contours of the study. 

For example, the chief function of ACUS, an advisory committee with a broad membership of 

1 141 Cong. Rec. S627 (daily ed. Jan. 9, 1995). 

2 House Committee on House Administration, Report to accompany H.R. 4822, H.R. Rep. No. 

103-650 Part 2, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 19 (1994); Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 

Report to accompany H.R. 4822, S. Rep. No. 103-397, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 26 (1994). 

3 2 U.S.C. 1371(d)(1). 

4 2 U.S.C. 1371(d)(2). 

- ii -
representatives from federal administrative agencies and the private sector, was to study 

administrative agencies and recommend improvements in their procedures. In contrast, the chief 

functions of the five-member Board are to issue legally binding regulations and to adjudicate 

disputes cognizable under the CAA.1 With this transfer of authority, the Board is now called 

upon to make determinations as to what changes would constitute “improvements” in the 

statutory schemes governing the instrumentalities. 

Such determinations would be made comparing the studied statutory and regulatory regimes with 

the regime established by the CAA. However, for the Board to issue recommendations as to the 

relative merits of the CAA or the statutory schemes in place at the instrumentalities at this early 

stage of its administration of the Act would be premature. Section 102(b) is instructive in this 

context. There, the Congress requires the Board to conduct a biennial review of federal 

employment law and “to report, with respect to provisions inapplicable to the legislative branch, 

whether such provisions should be made applicable to the legislative branch.”2 The Board notes 

in its 102(b) report that the ongoing nature of the 102(b) reporting requirement argues for 

accomplishing statutory change on an incremental basis as the Board gains rulemaking and 

adjudicatory experience. 

Because the Board reads its statutory mandate in the 102(b) study as informing its 230 study 

mandate, the Board has determined that its recommendations for change in the section 230 study 

should likewise proceed incrementally. Therefore, in the time available, consistent with executing 

its considerable rulemaking responsibilities in its first year of operation, the Board has gathered all 

the pertinent facts, elicited comments from interested parties, performed a searching analysis and 

come to conclusions as to comprehensiveness and effectiveness. The Board’s conclusions, which 

follow, will be the foundation for recommendations for change, if the Congress wishes the Board 

to proceed in either a further 230 study or in a future 102(b) report. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Overall 

On the basis of the foregoing review and evaluation, the Board concludes that, overall, the rights, 

protections, procedures and relief afforded to employees at the GAO, the GPO and the Library 

under the twelve laws listed in section 230(b) are, in general, comprehensive and effective when 

compared to those afforded other legislative branch employees covered under the CAA. The 

rights, protections, procedures and relief applicable to the three instrumentalities are different in 

some respects from those afforded under the CAA, in part because employment at the 

instrumentalities is governed either directly under civil service statutes and regulations or under 

1 See sections 301, 304, 406 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1381, 1384, 1406. 

2 2 U.S.C. 1302(b)(2)(B). 

- iii -
laws and regulations modeled on civil service law. The comments from employees at the 

instrumentalities generally supported the retention or further application of civil service-type 

protections, rather than substantial replacement of existing protections with the CAA. 

The CAA will extend rights and protections to fill most remaining gaps in coverage at the three 

instrumentalities, effective one year after this study is transmitted to Congress. However, certain 

gaps in coverage of GPO employees will remain because GPO is not covered under certain CAA 

provisions that will apply to GAO and the Library. 

Substantive Rights 

The Board found that the substantive provisions applicable at the instrumentalities are, in most 

respects, the same as, or similar to, those made applicable by the CAA and are at least as 

protective of employees. Moreover, at all three instrumentalities, employees have civil service 

protections that are outside the scope of the CAA. In certain areas, however, gaps in coverage 

were identified; for example, employees at GPO are not covered under either the Worker 

Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act or the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, and the 

CAA does not extend that protection to them in the future. And, the instrumentalities, like federal 

agencies generally, are authorized to allow employees to take compensatory time off instead of 

receiving overtime pay under a wider range of circumstances than is authorized under the CAA. 

Adequacy of Administrative Processes 

Conclusions with respect to the adequacy of administrative processes are more complicated. 

Congressional decisions made over many years in different statutes subject the instrumentalities to 

the authorities of certain executive branch agencies with respect to certain laws, but exempt them 

from executive branch authority with respect to others. The exemptions, which vary from one 

instrumentality to another, appear intended to preserve separation between legislative branch and 

executive branch functions and, in the case of GAO, to prevent conflicts that could arise from 

being regulated by the same civil service agencies that it audits. The CAA will establish additional 

avenues for administrative enforcement and relief by granting the Office of Compliance certain 

authorities in the areas of occupational safety and health and several other kinds of matters 

effective one year after transmittal of this study, applicable to GAO and the Library, but not to 

GPO. 

The result is a patchwork of coverages and exemptions from the procedures afforded under civil 

service law and the authority of executive branch agencies, and from the procedures afforded 

under the CAA and the authority of the Office of Compliance. The procedural regimes at the 

three instrumentalities differ from one another, are different from the CAA, and are different from 

that in the executive branch. While it is difficult to make normative judgments about these 

differences, the multiplicity of regulatory schemes means that, in some cases, employees have 

more procedural options available, and in some cases, fewer. Additional procedural steps may 

afford opportunities to employees in some cases, but may also be more time-consuming and 

inefficient. Furthermore, the remaining exemptions from the authority of both executive branch 

agencies and the Office of Compliance leave gaps in the rights of employees at the 

- iv -
instrumentalities to have their complaints resolved through an administrative process external to, 

and independent from, the employing agency -- one of the key elements of comprehensiveness and 

effectiveness that is guaranteed by the CAA. 

For example, Library employees may pursue a complaint of discrimination through procedures 

administered by the instrumentality, but if the Librarian of Congress denies the complaint, the 

employees have no right of appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any 

other administrative authority. In contrast, legislative branch employees covered by the CAA may 

pursue complaints of discrimination through administrative adjudication administered by the 

Office of Compliance with appeal to its Board of Directors. The Office of Compliance is an 

independent office external to, and independent from, the House or Senate or any covered 

instrumentality. 

Adequacy of Judicial Processes and Relief 

Judicial processes and relief are more limited at the instrumentalities than under the CAA, because 

civil service laws do not generally afford judicial remedies to the same extent as the CAA. The 

CAA will reduce this discrepancy by extending a private right of action for violations of several 

laws (the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 

the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, and the Employee Polygraph 

Protection Act), to employees of GAO and the Library, though not of GPO, effective as of one 

year after transmittal of this study. 

In certain other respects, however, the available judicial processes and relief will remain more 

limited at all three instrumentalities. For example, while employees under the CAA may request a 

jury trial in any situation where a private sector employee could do so, civil service laws 

applicable at the instrumentalities arguably authorize jury trials only in cases under Title VII or the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Adoption of Substantive Regulations 

Instrumentalities in certain instances also have significant latitude to establish (and limit) 

substantive rights for their own employees. For example, in issuing an order to establish its labormanagement program, GAO included limits on appropriate bargaining units and on the scope of 

bargaining that are more restrictive than the provisions in either the civil service statute governing 

labor-management relations in the federal service or the regulations adopted by the Board based 

on Federal Labor Relations Authority regulations. In this respect, substantive regulations are not 

proposed and adopted by an independent regulatory authority, which is an important element of 

the statutory scheme of the CAA. 

These and additional conclusions are further explained at the end of the study sections on each of 

the three instrumentalities. 

- v -
– – – – – – – – 

The analysis and conclusions in this study are being made solely for the purposes set forth in 

section 230 of the Congressional Accountability Act. Nothing in this study is intended or 

should be construed as a definitive interpretation of any factual or legal question by the Office 

of Compliance or its Board of Directors. 

– – – – – – – – 

The Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance gratefully acknowledges the 

contributions of Lawrence B. Novey, who directed this study. 

- vi -
INTRODUCTION 

Section 230 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) directs the Board of 

Directors (Board) of the Office of Compliance to conduct this study of the application of certain 

employment and antidiscrimination laws to the General Accounting Office (GAO), the 

Government Printing Office (GPO), and the Library of Congress (the Library). Section 230 

requires the study, including recommendations, be prepared and transmitted to each of these 

instrumentalities and to the Congress by December 31, 1996. 

Background 

The CAA, the first law passed by the 104th Congress, applies eleven labor, employment and 

public access laws to the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the instrumentalities of the 

legislative branch. The laws made applicable by the CAA provide rights and protections in the 

areas of: employment discrimination (race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability), 

overtime pay, minimum wage, and child labor, family and medical leave, occupational health and 

safety, labor-management relations, employee notification in case of office or plant closings or 

mass layoffs, employment and reemployment rights for those in the uniformed services, employee 

polygraph protection, and discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of public 

services and public accommodations. 

Statutory Mandate for the Study 

Even before enactment of the CAA, legal rights and protections in many of these areas had 

applied to the three largest Congressional instrumentalities – GAO, GPO, and the Library. The 

CAA made certain modifications in the laws that already apply at these instrumentalities, and 

mandated a study of the laws, regulations, and procedures applicable to these instrumentalities 

and their employees. 

As originally enacted, the CAA directed the Administrative Conference of the United States 

(ACUS) to conduct and submit the study to the Board, which would then transmit it, together 

with the Board’s comments, to the Congress and the instrumentalities by December 31, 1996. 

However, Congress amended the CAA in November 1995 to transfer responsibility for 

conducting the study from ACUS to the Board.1 

Laws Specified for Study 

The eleven laws that the CAA makes applicable are listed in the following chart, organized by the 

subject matter of the law. Since certain of the laws address more than one subject matter, 

different portions of these laws are entered separately on the chart. 

1 Section 309 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-53, 109 

Stat. 538 (Nov. 19, 1995). The amendment was made effective if and when ACUS should 

cease to exist. When ACUS was dissolved in November of 1995, the Board became 

responsible for conducting the study. 

- 1 -
LAWS MADE APPLICABLE BY THE CAA 

Abbreviation Law Subject of Law 

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION 

Title VII Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) 

Prohibits discrimination in employment 

because of race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin. 

ADEA Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 

1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) 

Prohibits employment discrimination against 

persons 40 years of age and over . 

ADA 

(employment 

provisions) 

Title I of the Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) 

Prohibits employment discrimination against 

qualified individuals with disabilities. 

Rehabilitation Act Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 

et seq.) 

Prohibits employment discrimination on the 

basis of handicapping condition. 

EPA Equal Pay Act (part of the FLSA) 

(29 U.S.C. 206(d)) 

Prohibits pay discrimination on the basis of 

sex. 

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, LABOR, HEALTH AND SAFETY 

FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 

U.S.C. 201 et seq.) 

Governs overtime pay, minimum wage, and 

child labor protection. 

FMLA 

(title 29 

provisions) 

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 

U.S.C. 2611 et seq.) 

Entitles eligible employees to take leave for 

certain family and medical reasons. 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) 

Protects the safety and health of employees 

from physical, chemical, and other hazards in 

their places of employment. 

Chapter 71 Federal Service Labor-Management 

Relations statute (5 U.S.C. chapter 71) 

Entitles individuals to form, join, or assist a 

labor organization, or to refrain from such 

activity, and to collectively bargain. 

WARN Act Worker Adjustment and Retraining 

Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) 

Provides certain employees with notice in 

advance of office or plant closings or mass 

layoffs. 

USERRA Section 2 of the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act of 1994 (38 U.S.C. chapter 43) 

Protects job rights of individuals who serve 

in the military and other uniformed services. 

EPPA Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 

1988 (29 U.S.C. 2001et seq.) 

Restricts use of “lie detector” tests by 

employers. 

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN PROVIDING 

PUBLIC SERVICES AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS 

ADA (public 

access 

provisions) 

Titles II and III of the Americans With 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 

et seq.) 

Prohibits discrimination against qualified 

individuals with disabilities in the provision 

of public services and accommodations. 

- 2 -
In addition to the laws that the CAA makes applicable, section 230 also requires study of certain 

provisions of civil service law and the GAO Personnel Act, which may apply, supplement, or 

affect the rights and protections under the laws made applicable by the CAA. These laws are 

listed in the following chart. 

OTHER RELATED LAWS 

Abbreviation Law Subject of Law 

“Prohibited 

Personnel 

Practices” 

provisions 

Section of civil service law on 

Prohibited Personnel Practices (5 

U.S.C. 2302) 

Prohibits certain employment practices, 

including unlawful discrimination on the basis 

of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, 

age, or handicapping condition, and retaliation 

for “whistleblowing” or for exercising appeal 

rights. 

FMLA (title 

5 provisions) 

Subchapter of civil service law on 

Family and Medical Leave (5 U.S.C. 

6381 et seq.), enacted by the FMLA 

Entitles eligible employees to take leave for 

certain family and medical reasons. 

“Premium 

Pay” 

provisions 

Subchapter of civil service law on 

Premium Pay (5 U.S.C. 5541 et seq.) 

Provides for overtime pay in addition to that 

under the FLSA, and provides certain 

exceptions to the requirements of the FLSA. 

“Safety 

Programs” 

provisions 

Section of civil service law on Safety 

Programs (5 U.S.C. 7902) 

Requires the establishment of certain safety 

programs. 

GAOPA General Accounting Office Personnel 

Act of 1980 (31 U.S.C. 731 et seq.) 

Requires a personnel management system at 

GAO, and establishes responsibilities and 

procedures for implementing the rights and 

protections under several employment laws. 

Collection of Information 

To compile the information needed in this study, the Board conducted a process of outreach and 

data collection and received full cooperation and assistance from the instrumentalities and their 

representatives, unions and other employee organizations, and individual employees. 

Materials Collected by the Administrative Conference 

Before responsibility for conducting the study was transferred to the Board in November of 1995, 

ACUS had begun the task of collecting the materials and information necessary for the study. 

The materials collected by ACUS included materials provided by the instrumentalities and an 

employee union describing the applicable laws, regulations, and procedures, and suggesting topics 

that should be emphasized in the study. When the Board assumed responsibility for the study, 

ACUS transferred these materials to the Office of Compliance. 

- 3 -
Notice of Request for Information 

On May 2, 1996, the Office of Compliance issued a Notice of Request for Information. This 

Notice described the nature and scope of the study, and requested that the three instrumentalities, 

their employees and employee representatives, and persons who use public services and public 

accommodations at the instrumentalities, as well as any other interested persons, provide 

information helpful to the Board in conducting the study. 

The Notice (a copy of which is set forth in Appendix B) was sent to GAO, GPO, and the Library, 

to each union at GPA and the Library, and to each employee council at GAO. Included with the 

letters to these instrumentalities and organizations were copies of a poster summarizing the 

contents of the Notice and inviting interested persons to provide information for the study and to 

contact the Office of Compliance if further information was needed, which was circulated and 

posted at GAO and GPO and published in the Library Gazette, which is widely circulated at the 

Library. Because the coverage of ADA titles II and III includes non-employees who use public 

services and public accommodations, the Notice was also sent to several organizations with an 

interest in the accessibility of public services and public accommodations to persons with 

disabilities. 

Consultations and Meetings 

In response to the Notice of Request for Information, numerous calls were received from 

individual employees, unions, other employee organizations, and lawyers representing individual 

employees asking for further information, and meetings were held with those who requested 

meetings. Although a better understanding of the nature of employment at the instrumentalities 

was gained in these conversations and meetings, only the information and comments received in 

writing were included in the record upon which the study is based. 

Each instrumentality chose to designate its General Counsel as the principal contact point for the 

study, and conversations and meetings were held with the General Counsel and other officials and 

staff within the instrumentalities to ascertain the instrumentalities’ views as to what laws, 

regulations, and procedures are applicable, and to obtain copies of the regulations and procedures 

issued internally by the instrumentalities by which they apply and enforce the laws. These 

meetings and discussions provided useful insight and understanding, but, again, only the 

information and comments received in writing were included in the record upon which the study is 

based. Furthermore, in several instances, inquiries made in conducting the study prompted the 

instrumentalities to conclude that their regulations and procedures should be modified or updated, 

or that the timing of a planned modification or update in those regulations and procedures should 

be accelerated. 

Materials Received 

Submissions were received from the management of the instrumentalities, unions or other 

employee organizations, and individual employees. In total, 42 different commenters provided 

submissions – 15 different management officials at the instrumentalities, 9 unions and other 

- 4 -
employee organizations, 17 individual employees, and one outside organization interested in 

public accessibility by persons with disabilities. 

Disclosure of Initial Submissions and Notice of Opportunity to Respond 

In mid-October, letters were sent to the instrumentalities, employee unions and other employee 

organizations, and organizations interested in accessibility to persons with disabilities 

instrumentalities, notifying them that the materials submitted for the study were available for 

public inspection, and inviting interested persons to submit, by November 15, 1996, any 

comments or materials in response to the earlier submissions. Additional submissions were 

received in response to this notice. 

Public Documents 

Materials submitted to the Office of Compliance for use in this study are available for inspection 

and copying upon request by any member of the public. However, the identity of individual 

employees who provided submissions for the study will be kept confidential. A summary of all 

comments received is provided in Appendix C. 

Contents and Organization of the Study 

The study is divided into three sections, one for each instrumentality. Each section first reviews 

the application of the laws at the instrumentality. This review is organized on a law-by-law basis, 

with anti-discrimination laws grouped together. The review includes the substantive rights 

afforded by statute and regulations and the administrative and judicial processes and enforcement 

mechanisms available for resolving disputes, remedying violations, and assuring compliance. 

As required by section 230(c) of the CAA, the study evaluates “whether the rights, protections, 

and procedures, including administrative and judicial relief,” are “comprehensive and effective.” 

To conduct this evaluation, the study compares the rights, protections, and procedures at each of 

the instrumentalities with the corresponding rights, protections, and procedures afforded to 

covered employees under the CAA. 

In making these comparisons, the study reviews key aspects of the current statutory and 

regulatory regimes: 

(a) the substantive rights and protections afforded to employees, both as guaranteed 

by statute and as applied by rules and regulations; 

(b) the adequacy of administrative processes, including: (i) adequate enforcement 

mechanisms for monitoring compliance and detecting and correcting violations, 

and (ii) a fair and independent mechanism for informally resolving or, if necessary, 

investigating, adjudicating, and appealing disputes; 

(c) the availability and adequacy of judicial processes and relief; and 

- 5 -
(d) the adequacy of any process for issuing substantive regulations specific to an 

instrumentality, including proposal and adoption by an independent regulatory 

authority under appropriate statutory criteria. 

The study includes brief descriptions of the comments received that are relevant to the 

evaluations. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

Several provisions of the CAA are to become effective at the instrumentalities one year after this 

study is transmitted to Congress: (i) GAO and the Library are included under the CAA provisions 

that apply the rights and protections of EPPA, WARN, USERRA, and OSHA; (ii) GAO and the 

Library are removed from coverage by the Title 5 provisions of the FMLA, which ordinarily apply 

in the Federal civil service, and are placed under the coverage of the Title 29 FMLA provisions, 

which ordinarily apply in the private sector; and (iii) the remedies and procedures in section 717 

of Title VII1 will apply for claims under public access provisions of the ADA with respect to any 

of the three instrumentalities. To enable Congress to review these delayed statutory provisions 

during the year after the study is transmitted, the study includes evaluation of these statutory 

provisions with delayed effective dates. 

Finally, at the end of each of the three sections of the study, the Board sets forth its conclusions 

drawn from the evaluation of rights, protections, and procedures at the instrumentalities. 

1 29 U.S.C. 2000e-16. 

- 6 -
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

OVERVIEW 

Section 230 of the CAA directs a study of the application of the laws listed in section 230(b) of 

the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) to, among others, the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) and its employees.1 The study is to “evaluate whether the rights, protections, and 

procedures, including administrative and judicial relief,” are “comprehensive and effective,” and to 

“include recommendations for any improvements in regulations or legislation.”2 Section 230(b) of 

the CAA lists the eleven laws made applicable by the CAA to “covered” legislative branch 

employees and adds, for study, the General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 1980 (GAOPA). 

In this section on GAO, the Board first reviews the rights, protections, procedures, and relief 

afforded to GAO employees under the GAOPA. The GAOPA provisions on discrimination, 

labor-management relations, and notification to employees affected by reduction in force (RIF) 

are discussed in the separate sub-sections on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Americans with Disibilities Act of 1990 

(ADA), Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, relating to Federal Service Labor-Management 

Relations (Chapter 71) and Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). The 

GAOPA does not expressly address the remaining CAA laws -- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

(FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act of 1963 (FMLA), Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Act of 1994 (USERRA), Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA), 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), and the public access provisions of the 

ADA -- which will be discussed separately as well. 

To evaluate comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the rights, protections, procedures, and relief 

afforded to GAO employees under the laws listed in section 230(b), the study compares them 

with those available to other legislative branch employees under the CAA. In addition, where 

appropriate, the rights, protections, procedures and relief under the GAOPA and the eleven CAA 

laws are compared with those applicable in the executive branch under civil service law and with 

those afforded to employees in the private sector. Comments submitted by interested persons 

were reviewed, summarized, and have been considered in the Board’s evaluations and 

conclusions. 

1 As originally enacted, section 230 directed the Administrative Conference of the United States 

(ACUS) to conduct the study and submit it to the Board of Directors of the Office of 

Compliance, which would then transmit the study, together with the Board’s comments, to the 

Congress and the instrumentalities by December 31, 1996. However, Congress amended 

section 230 in November of 1995 to transfer responsibility for conducting the study from the 

Conference to the Board. Section 309 of Pub. L. No. 104-53, 109 Stat. 538 (Nov. 19, 1995). 

2 Section 230(c) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1371(c). 

- 7 -
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 

(TITLE VII) 

Substantive Rights 

GAO and its employees are specifically covered by section 717, which is the provision of Title VII 

generally applicable to federal sector employees.1 Under section 717(a), “[a]ll personnel actions 

affecting employees or applicants for employment” in covered agencies and offices “shall be made 

free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This 

provision has been understood to prohibit retaliation against an employee for asserting rights 

under Title VII.2 

Regulations 

The GAOPA provides that, as to discrimination matters, the PAB and the Comptroller General 

exercise the authority of executive branch agencies for GAO employees. Accordingly, the 

regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) expressly exclude 

GAO from coverage.3 GAO’s regulations establishing the GAO personnel management system 

restate the language in the GAOPA prohibiting discrimination,4 and also define prohibited 

personnel practices, based on civil service law, to include discrimination “as prohibited under 

section 717 of [Title VII]” committed by a GAO employee with personnel authority.5 In 

1 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. The coverage of section 717 includes employees and applicants “in 

executive agencies as defined in section 105 of Title 5” of the U.S. Code. GAO comes within 

this statutory definition of an “executive agency.” The definition of an “executive agency” in 

5 U.S.C. 105 includes: an executive department, a government corporation, and an 

independent establishment. An “independent establishment” is further defined in 5 U.S.C. 

104(2) to include: an “establishment in the executive branch” (with certain exceptions), and 

GAO. (This definition does not mean that GAO is in the “executive branch” of government, 

and, indeed, GAO is generally considered to be in the legislative branch.) 

Furthermore, section 201(c)(1) of the CAA amended Title VII to include GAO, by name, 

within the coverage of section 717. 

2 See Tomasello v. Rubin, 920 F.Supp. 4, 6-7 (D.D.C. 1996); Ethnic Employees of the Library 

of Congress v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1905, 1915 n.13 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Porter v. Adams, 639 

F.2d 273, 278 (5th Cir. 1981). 

3 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(2); 29 C.F.R. 1614.103(d)(2). 

4 4 C.F.R. 7.2(a). 

5 4 C.F.R. 2.5(a)(1). This corresponds to the prohibited personnel practices defined in civil 

(continued...) 

- 13 -
addition, GAO and the PAB have each issued regulations governing the administrative 

processing of discrimination complaints. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

With respect to anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII, the GAOPA withdraws GAO 

from the jurisdiction of executive branch agencies, and divides regulatory authority between 

the Comptroller General and the PAB. The GAOPA grants to the PAB the same authority 

over “oversight and appeals matters” as is exercised by executive branch regulatory agencies, 

including the EEOC and MSPB.1 GAO management exercises the same authority as executive 

branch agencies have over them. 

The GAO discrimination complaint process, similar to the executive branch agencies’ 

discrimination complaint process, is established under GAO Order 2713.2.2 A discrimination 

proceeding at GAO begins with a mandatory counseling period, and may also include, with the 

consent of the parties, a period of mediation, conducted by the agency’s Civil Rights Office. 

After the counseling phase, the employee may file an individual complaint. Unless the Civil 

Rights Office dismisses the complaint, it develops a factual record by conducting its own 

investigation, including the collection of documents and testimonial evidence. (In the case of a 

class complaint, an outside hearing officer develops a record and conducts a hearing as part of 

the investigatory process before the agency makes its final decision.) After the investigation 

(or hearing), the Comptroller General or a designee issues a final decision on behalf of the 

agency. A reasonable amount of official time must be granted to an employee to participate in 

a proceeding, respond to an inquiry by the Civil Rights Office, or prepare a complaint. A 

GAO employee may designate another GAO employee as his or her representative, and that 

representative shall also be granted a reasonable amount of official time for the same purpose.3 

Appeal to the PAB. An individual may file a charge with the PAB General Counsel either 

after a GAO agency decision has been issued on the complaint, or if more than 120 days have 

5 (...continued) 

service law at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1)(A). 

1 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(2)(A). 

2 The current version of the Order was issued on October 14, 1994, but GAO is circulating a 

draft revision, dated April 23, 1996. 

3 See GAO Order 2723.2, chap. 8, sec. 2, pages 27-28 (Oct. 14, 1994). 

- 14 -
elapsed since the complaint was filed.1 The General Counsel conducts an investigation, 

including gathering information and interviewing and taking statements from witnesses, refines 

the issues where appropriate, and attempts to settle the matters at issue. Following the 

investigation, the General Counsel provides the charging employee with a “Right to Appeal 

Letter,” accompanied by a confidential statement of the General Counsel advising the charging 

party of the results of the investigation.2 Whenever the General Counsel finds reasonable 

grounds to believe that the charging party’s rights have been violated, the General Counsel 

represents the charging party unless that party elects otherwise. 

In the case of a class complaint, a petition for review may be submitted directly to the Board, 

following a GAO decision rejecting or modifying the class action, or after a final GAO 

decision on the complaint, or if more than 180 days have elapsed, without a final GAO 

decision. A formal adjudicatory hearing is then held, ordinarily before a single Board 

member, who renders an initial decision, with appeal to the entire Board.3 In the case of a 

class complaint, the Board may choose to render a decision without further hearing, based on 

the record of the hearing conducted under Order 2713.2.4 

If an employee is affected by an appealable adverse action (defined as a “removal, suspension 

for more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, or furlough of not more than 30 days 

(whether due to disciplinary, performance-based or other reasons))”, which the employee 

alleges was due to prohibited discrimination, the employee may elect to file a complaint of 

discrimination with GAO or file a charge with the PAB General Counsel without having first 

filed a discrimination complaint with GAO. 

Other Avenues of Enforcement. An EEO violation committed by a GAO employee with 

personnel authority constitutes a “prohibited personnel practice.”5 If information comes to the 

attention of the PAB General Counsel suggesting that a prohibited personnel practice may have 

occurred or is to be taken, the PAB General Counsel shall investigate and may recommend 

corrective action to GAO or petition the PAB for corrective action, may initiate disciplinary 

proceeding against a responsible employee, or (except in the case of a RIF) may request a stay 

1 The PAB’s regulations establishing procedures for discrimination cases are codified at 4 

C.F.R. 28.95-28.101. 

2 See 4 C.F.R. 28.11-28.12. 

3 See 4 C.F.R. 28.86 (hearings before non-Board members), 28.87 (hearings before Board 

members). 

4 4 C.F.R. 28.97(d). 

5 By a GAO employee “who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or 

approve any personnel action.” 4 C.F.R. 2.5. 

- 15 -
from the Board.1 

Additionally, any person or the PAB General Counsel may petition the PAB for enforcement 

of a final PAB order, including a final PAB order involving unlawful discrimination. PAB 

regulations provide that, upon receipt of a petition for enforcement, or of a report from the 

PAB’s Solicitor indicating non-compliance, the PAB may initiate a PAB proceeding to 

determine whether there was non-compliance, and may then seek judicial enforcement of its 

order.2 

PAB’s Oversight Authority. Under the GAOPA, the PAB exercises oversight authority over 

the anti-discrimination program at GAO.3 Such oversight includes requiring GAO to provide 

to the PAB, upon request, various plans, reports, and statistics, reviewing and evaluating the 

GAO’s regulations, procedures, and practices in the anti-discrimination area. The PAB can 

require GAO to make any changes it determines are needed due to violations or inconsistencies 

with applicable anti-discrimination law.4 

Judicial 

Civil Action. Section 717 entitles executive branch employees, as well as GAO employees, to 

file a civil action and request a jury trial if the complaining party seeks compensatory 

damages.

5 Section 717 specifies that a civil action may be filed after a complaint has reached 

one of four stages in the administrative processing of the complaint: (i) after 180 days from 

filing the complaint with the employing agency if there is no final decision on the complaint, 

or (ii) within 90 days of receipt of notice of final action by the employing agency, or (iii) after 

180 days from appealing to the EEOC if there is no final decision on the appeal, or (iv) within 

90 days of receipt of notice of final decision by the EEOC.6 However, there has been some 

uncertainty how this provision applies to GAO employees whose right of appeal is to the PAB, 

not the EEOC. 

1 See 4 C.F.R. 28.130-28.133 

2 See 4 C.F.R. 28.88. 

3 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(2)(A). 

4 4 C.F.R. 28.91-28.92. 

5 In any action brought under section 717 of Title VII, if a complaining party seeks 

compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. 1981a, subsection (c) of that section authorizes any 

party to demand a jury trial. 

6 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c). 

- 16 -
The circumstances under which a GAO employee may file a civil action in district court under 

Title VII after having taken an appeal before the PAB were addressed by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Ramey v. Bowsher.1 The Court in that case 

held that a GAO employee could not file a civil action in district court under Title VII after 

having received a final PAB decision. The Court found that the GAOPA forecloses filing a 

civil action after a GAO employee “invokes the Board’s adjudicatory authority in a 

discrimination case.” The Court did not, however, “address the issue whether in a 

discrimination case, a GAO employee may bypass the Board and proceed directly to district 

court.”2 

In response to the Ramey decision, the PAB withdrew its guidance as to when GAO employees 

might file a civil action, explaining: “The legal uncertainty highlighted by the Ramey case 

concerns whether GAO employees have any other options [besides asking the court of appeals 

to review a final PAB decision] for obtaining judicial consideration of their claims of 

discrimination. The PAB will leave that matter for resolution by the Courts.”3 

Judicial Review of Agency Administrative Processes. In a case alleging discrimination made 

unlawful under the GAOPA, a final decision of the PAB may be reviewed by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.4 

Relief 

In the case of a violation of Title VII, the following relief may be available to a GAO 

employee: enjoining unlawful employment practices; ordering that such affirmative steps be 

taken as may be appropriate, including reinstatement or hiring, with or without back pay; 

and/or any other equitable relief as may be deemed appropriate.5 Interest may be awarded to 

compensate for delay in payment. In addition, under 42 U.S.C. 1981a, compensatory 

damages are available for intentional discrimination. In such a case, compensatory damages 

for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, and other nonpecuniary losses are 

1 Ramey v. Bowsher, 9 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

2 9 F.3d at 136 n.6. A concurring opinion stated that a GAO employee has the option “either 

to sue his employing agency in district court, or to seek relief from the GAO’s Personnel 

Appeals Board.” 9 F.3d at 137. 

3 59 Fed. Reg. 59103, 59105 (Nov.16, 1994). PAB had originally interpreted Title VII as 

affording GAO employees the same opportunities to file a civil action in district court as it 

affords to executive branch employees. See former PAB regulations, 4 C.F.R. 28.100(a), as 

promulgated at 58 Fed. Reg. 61988, 62005 (Nov. 23, 1993). 

4 See 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(1), 753(a)(7), 755. 

5 See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g), which is made applicable by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(d). 

- 17 -
capped at no more than $300,000.1 If the employee prevails in a Title VII case, the court 

may, in its discretion, allow the employee reasonable attorney’s fees (including expert fees) as 

part of the costs.2 

1 See 42 U.S.C. 1981a(a)(1), 1981a(b)(2), 1981a(b)(3)(D). 

2 See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k), which is made applicable by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(d). 

- 18 -
THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PERSONNEL ACT OF 1980 

(GAOPA) 

The GAOPA was introduced in Congress at the request of the Comptroller General to grant GAO 

independence from regulation by executive branch agencies.1 Before the GAOPA was enacted in 

1980, GAO employees were subject to the provisions of law concerning pay, classification, 

appointment, and other matters applied to the executive branch. GAO was thus regulated in 

personnel matters by executive branch agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM), the Office of Special Counsel, and the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), while, at 

the same time, responsible to Congress for examining, evaluating, and reporting on the programs 

and financial activities of these executive branch agencies. As explained in a Senate committee 

report describing the legislation that became the GAOPA, after the passage of the Civil Service 

Reform Act of 1978, GAO assumed added responsibility for monitoring executive branch 

personnel agencies and evaluating the effectiveness of programs established under the statute.2 

Congress therefore enacted the GAOPA to establish a self-contained personnel system for GAO, 

largely removing it from the regulation of OPM and other executive branch agencies. In addition, 

because the civil service laws were seen as “not readily accommodat[ing] the special needs of the 

GAO which arise from its unique status and responsibilities as an arm of the Congress,” that 

system was to have “greater flexibility in hiring and managing its workforce without regard to 

civil service laws governing such matters as appointments, classifying and grading positions, 

compensation, adverse actions and appeals.” Accordingly, the legislation gave “broad authority 

to the Comptroller General” in designing GAO’s personnel system.3 

Substantive Rights 

The GAOPA requires the Comptroller General to “maintain a personnel management system” that 

confers rights in the subject areas of several of the laws made applicable by the CAA.4 The 

1 See S. Rep. (Governmental Affairs Committee) No. 96-540 (Dec. 20, 1979), reprinted in 

1980 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 50-53. 

2 Id. 

3 Id. at 52. 

4 A number of GAOPA provisions apply other rights, protections, and prohibitions of civil 

service laws. For example, the GAOPA requires that the GAO personnel management system 

must: include “merit system principles,” provide for performance appraisals and adverse 

actions, veterans’ preferences, and pay consistent with civil service pay systems, prohibit 

discrimination on the basis of marital status, political affiliation, refusal to engage in political 

(continued...) 

- 9 -
GAOPA both requires GAO management to protect employees against discrimination and 

preserves GAO employees’ rights under applicable anti-discrimination laws. In other areas, the 

GAOPA requires GAO management to afford specified rights and protections based on provisions 

of civil service law such as merit system principles, veterans’ preference, and prohibited personnel 

practices. The term “prohibited personnel practices” in civil service law encompasses a range of 

practices including unlawful discrimination, nepotism, violation of any law or rule relating to merit 

system principles, and retaliation against an employee for exercise of appeal rights granted by any 

law. Reprisal for disclosure of information (“whistleblowing”) that the employee believes 

evidences a violation of any law also is prohibited. These prohibited personnel practices thus 

afford protections against retaliation that supplement whatever retaliation protection is applicable 

under particular anti-discrimination or other employment laws.1 

Regulations and Orders 

The basic substantive elements of the personnel management system required by the GAOPA 

were established by regulations promulgated by the Comptroller General in the Federal Register 

and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.2 These regulations restate the prohibition of 

unlawful employment discrimination, and the right of employees to form, join, or assist unions, or 

to refrain from doing so, in the same terms as are used in the GAOPA.3 The prohibited personnel 

practices forbidden by GAO regulations now differ in some respects from civil service law, 

because GAO regulations were issued in 1980, and have not been amended to conform to 

amendments made to civil service law in 1989.4 GAO has also issued Orders containing more 

detailed standards and procedures for certain elements of the personnel management system, 

including employment discrimination, labor-management relations, adverse actions, and a general 

administrative grievance procedure.5 

4 (...continued) 

activity, or any conduct that does not adversely affect performance, forbid nepotism, and 

prohibit political practices prohibited under the Hatch Act. 31 U.S.C. 732. 

1 4 C.F.R. 2.5(a). 

2 4 C.F.R. parts 2 et seq. 

3 4 C.F.R. 7.1(a), 7.2(a). 

4 4 C.F.R. 2.4-2.5. 

5 GAO Orders 2713.1 and 2713.2 (employment discrimination); Order 2711.1 (labor 

management relations); Order 2752.1(adverse actions); Order 2771.1, as amended by GAO 

Notice 2771.1 (A-92) (April 2, 1992) (administrative grievance procedure). 

- 10 -
Procedures 

Under the GAOPA, several procedural avenues are available to GAO employees to resolve 

employment-related disputes. The GAOPA retains many features of the federal employee dispute 

resolution system, itself complicated, and transfers authorities administered and enforced by the 

executive branch to GAO management and to the Personnel Appeals Board (PAB). The PAB has 

adjudicative and appellate authority, including authority over the appeal of discrimination cases, 

and appeals from agency decisions involving certain adverse actions and prohibited personnel 

practices, including retaliation. 

Administrative Grievance Procedure 

The GAOPA requires the GAO personnel management system to include comprehensive 

procedures for processing complaints and grievances.1 Thus, the GAO established, by order, a 

general Administrative Grievance Procedure, which is broadly available to resolve any employee 

grievance in “a matter of concern or dissatisfaction relating to the employment of the employee(s) 

that is subject to the control of GAO management,” but not including any discrimination 

complaint, which is handled by specialized procedures at GAO, and not including any matter 

appealable to the PAB.2 The GAO order offers several examples of matters that might be 

resolved through the Administrative Grievance Procedure: official reprimands, suspensions from 

duty without pay for 14 days or less, inconsistent application of office policy, or nonselection for 

training. 

Most complaints brought under the Administrative Grievance Procedure are presented first to the 

lowest level supervisor or manager who has authority to grant the requested relief, i.e., ordinarily 

the immediate supervisor. Appeal is made to a higher-level manager, with further appeal to the 

Special Assistant to the Comptroller General, who has the discretion to use the fact finding 

services of an examiner. The examiner, who may be a GAO or contract employee, determines 

whether a hearing is necessary. 

Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) 

The GAOPA established the PAB as an independent office within GAO to adjudicate employee 

claims and appeals and perform oversight functions that, for the executive branch agencies, are 

performed by independent boards and agencies. The PAB is composed of five members 

appointed by the Comptroller General for a five-year term from a list of candidates submitted by 

an organization of individuals experienced in adjudicating or arbitrating personnel matters.3 

Current or former GAO officers or employees are ineligible. A member may not be reappointed, 

1 31 U.S.C. 732(d)(5).

2 GAO Order 2771.1, as amended by GAO Notice 2771.1 (A-92) (April 2, 1992).

3 31 U.S.C. 751-755.

- 11 -
and may be removed only by a majority of the other PAB members, and only for inefficiency, 

neglect of duty, or malfeasance. The Board selects one of its own members as Chairman. The 

Chairman selects an individual, who is then appointed by the Comptroller General to be General 

Counsel of the PAB, and who serves at the pleasure of the Chairman. 

The PAB has independent authority, including authority over appeals of EEO cases, appeals 

from agency decisions involving adverse actions, and adjudicative and appellate authority over 

prohibited personnel practices, including retaliation. The PAB also handles representation 

matters and certain claims and appeals involving labor-management relations. 

Judicial 

PAB decisions are subject to judicial review by appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit. 

- 12 -
THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967 

(ADEA) 

Substantive Rights 

GAO and its employees are covered by section 15 of the ADEA, the provision of the ADEA 

generally applicable to federal sector employees.1 Furthermore, the CAA amended the ADEA to 

specifically include GAO within the coverage of section 15.2 Under section 15, “[a]ll personnel 

actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years of age” in 

covered agencies and offices “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age,” and 

section 12(b) of the ADEA reiterates that the prohibitions established in section 16 “shall be 

limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.”3 The GAOPA, as discussed above, 

preserves GAO employees’ substantive rights under applicable anti-discrimination laws, including 

ADEA, reiterates those rights, and requires that they be protected by the GAO personnel 

management system.4 

The law is unsettled as to whether the retaliation prohibition contained in section 4(d) of the 

ADEA5 is made applicable to federal agencies by section 15 of the ADEA. Two recent decisions 

by federal district courts for the District of Columbia, where most GAO employees are located, 

have held that it does not.6 It also is unclear whether the ADEA protections with respect to 

waivers -- under which any waiver of a right or claim requested by an employer must be “knowing 

and voluntary” and must be in exchange for valuable consideration -- applies to federal agencies, 

including GAO, under section 15 of the ADEA.7 

1 29 U.S.C. 633a. 

2 Section 201(c)(2) of the CAA. 

3 29 U.S.C. 631(b). 

4 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(1)(A), (2). 

5 29 U.S.C. 623(d). 

6 Tomasello v. Rubin, 920 F. Supp. 4 (D.D.C. 1996); Koslow v. Hundt, 919 F. Supp. 18 

(D.D.C. 1995). 

7 The waiver provisions, in section 7(f) of the ADEA purport to apply to “any right or claim 

under this Act.” 29 U.S.C. 626(f) (“any right or claim under this chapter [14 of title 29, 

which encompasses 29 U.S.C. 621-634]”). However, section 15(f) of the ADEA states that 

provisions outside of section 15 do not affect claims under section 15. 29 U.S.C. 633a(f). 

- 19 -
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 

(ADA) 

AND THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 

Substantive Rights 

Section 509 of the ADA provides that the rights and protections under the entire ADA shall apply 

to certain congressional instrumentalities, including GAO.1 Basic provisions with respect to 

employment discrimination are set forth in title I of the ADA,2 although additional provisions are 

found elsewhere in the ADA. In general terms, the law prohibits employment discrimination 

against “a qualified individual with a disability” because of the disability.3 

GAO takes the position that section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination 

on the basis of handicapping condition for employees in the executive branch, does not apply to 

GAO, an agency in the legislative branch.4 However, with respect to the prohibitions against 

discrimination, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act each contains cross-references to the other, so 

that their standards are in most respects substantially the same.5 

Furthermore, the GAOPA, as discussed above, preserves GAO employees’ substantive rights 

under applicable anti-discrimination laws, reiterates those rights, and requires that they be 

protected by the GAO personnel management system.6 

1 42 U.S.C. 12209(1)-(2). 

2 42 U.S.C. 12111-12117. 

3 42 U.S.C. 12112 (a). 

4 29 U.S.C. 791. The PAB has reserved judgment on this issue, because the GAOPA, as 

enacted, contains references specifically to the Rehabilitation Act. See statement of PAB, 58 

Fed. Reg. 61988, 61990 (Nov. 23, 1993). These and other references to specific antidiscrimination laws are omitted from the GAOPA language that Congress codified in Title 31, 

U.S. Code. See 31 U.S.C. 732 (historical and revision notes). 

5 29 U.S.C. 791(g); 42 U.S.C. 12201(a). 

6 The GAOPA requires that personnel actions be taken without regard to “handicapping 

condition.” The term “handicapping condition” is the term that was used in section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act before it was amended to conform to the ADA, which uses the term 

“individual with a disability.” 

- 21 -
Regulations 

GAO’s current regulations establishing the GAO personnel system restate the language in the 

GAOPA prohibiting discrimination, and also define prohibited personnel practices, based on civil 

service law, to include discrimination: “[o]n the basis of handicapping condition, as prohibited 

under section 501 of [the Rehabilitation Act].”1 On August 28, 1996, GAO published a proposal 

to amend these regulations by striking references to the Rehabilitation Act and replacing them 

with references to the ADA.2 In addition, GAO and the PAB have each issued regulations 

governing how they will handle ADA complaints, which are described below. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Section 509 of the ADA states that nothing in that section shall alter “the enforcement procedures 

for individuals with disabilities” provided in the GAOPA. Under the GAOPA, GAO provides the 

same administrative processes for ADA complaints as it provides for Title VII complaints 

(described above in the section on Title VII). 

However, the CAA added a new paragraph (5) to section 509 of the ADA, providing that the 

“remedies and procedures” of section 717 of Title VII shall be available to employees of the 

congressional instrumentalities covered by section 509 who allege a violation of sections 102 

through 104 of the ADA, including a GAO employee, except that the authorities of the EEOC are 

to be exercised by the head of the instrumentality.3 Under section 717, the EEOC hears appeals 

from employing agencies’ disposition of discrimination complaints, and has oversight 

responsibility of employing agencies’ EEO programs. GAO management, in its comments, 

has stated that this provision appears inconsistent with the GAOPA, which provides that the 

PAB, not the Comptroller General, exercises the EEOC’s authority over appeals and oversight 

matters. 

Judicial 

Civil Action 

As noted above, paragraph (5) of ADA section 509, which was added by the CAA, states that 

the “remedies and procedures” of section 717 of Title VII shall be available to a GAO 

employee who alleges a violation of sections 102 through 104 of the ADA. Considered 

1 4 C.F.R. 2.5(a)(4). Apparently quoting from the GAOPA as enacted, this GAO regulation 

also states: “Nothing in this order shall be construed to abolish or diminish any right or 

remedy granted to employees of or applicants for employment in GAO— . . . (4) by sections 

501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791, 794a) . . . .” 

2 61 Fed. Reg. 44187 (Aug. 28, 1996). 

3 41 U.S.C. 12209(5), as added by section 201(c)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

- 22 -
without reference to the GAOPA, section 509(5) could be interpreted to entitle GAO 

employees to file a civil action at corresponding points in the administrative process at GAO. 

However, as discussed above in the context of Title VII, the court in Ramey v. Bowsher1 held 

that a GAO employee could not file a civil action in district court under Title VII after having 

received a final PAB decision, and the court stated that the GAOPA forecloses filing a civil 

action after a GAO employee “invokes the Board’s adjudicatory authority in a discrimination 

case.”2 

Section 509(5) of the ADA makes the remedies and procedures of section 717 of Title VII 

available for violations of sections 101-104 of the ADA, which establish the basic prohibition 

of employment discrimination and defenses. The study has identified two areas of 

inconsistency in coverage. Section 509(5) does not refer to ADA section 503, which prohibits 

retaliation against employees for exercising ADA rights. The omission of section 503 from 

the provisions referenced in section 509(5) may prevent a district court from granting a remedy 

for GAO employees who suffer retaliation for exercising ADA rights. 

Second, section 509(5) of the ADA applies to “any employee” of GAO, but does not refer to 

applicants for employment. The definition of “employee” in the ADA does not include 

applicants,3 who are referenced specifically, along with employees, in relevant ADA 

provisions.4 It could therefore be argued that applicants for employment at GAO cannot 

invoke the remedies provided by section 509(5), including the right to file a civil action. 

Appellate Review of Agency Administrative Processes 

In a case alleging discrimination made unlawful under the GAOPA, a final decision of the 

PAB may be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.5 

Relief 

Section 509(5) applies the remedies and procedures “set forth in” section 717 of Title VII (see 

discussion above). 

1 Ramey v. Bowsher, 9 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

2 9 F.3d at 136.

3 See 42 U.S.C. section 12111(4).

4 See 42 U.S.C. section 12112(b).

5 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(1), 753(a)(7), 755.

- 23 -
Regulations 

GAO is not covered under EEOC’s regulations on federal sector equal employment 

opportunity. GAO’s regulations establishing the GAO personnel management system restate 

the language in the GAOPA prohibiting discrimination,1 and also define prohibited personnel 

practices, based on civil service law, to include discrimination “[o]n the basis of age, as 

prohibited under sections 12 and 15 of [the ADEA],” committed by a GAO employee with 

personnel authority.2 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The administrative processes at GAO for ADEA violations are generally the same as those for 

Title VII violations, as described above in the section on Title VII. 

Judicial 

A GAO employee is entitled under the ADEA section 15(c) to file a civil action in any federal 

district court of competent jurisdiction. However, employees at federal agencies covered by 

section 15 of the ADEA are not entitled to a jury trial in an ADEA action.3 And, as discussed 

above in the Title VII section, the Ramey decision has created some legal uncertainty as to 

whether GAO employees’ have access to federal district courts in discrimination cases. 

Appellate Review of Agency Administrative Processes. In a case alleging discrimination made 

unlawful under the GAOPA including age discrimination cases, a final decision of the PAB 

may be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.4 

Relief 

In case of a violation of the ADEA, the relief available to a GAO employee is: such legal or 

equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of the ADEA.5 

1 4 C.F.R. 7.2(a). 

2 4 C.F.R. 2.5(a)(2). This corresponds to the prohibited personnel practices defined in civil 

service law at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1)(B). 

3 See Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981). 

4 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(1), 753(a)(7), 755. 

5 See 29 U.S.C. 633a(c). 

- 20 -
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 

(ADA) 

AND THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 

Substantive Rights 

Section 509 of the ADA provides that the rights and protections under the entire ADA shall apply 

to certain congressional instrumentalities, including GAO.1 Basic provisions with respect to 

employment discrimination are set forth in title I of the ADA,2 although additional provisions are 

found elsewhere in the ADA. In general terms, the law prohibits employment discrimination 

against “a qualified individual with a disability” because of the disability.3 

GAO takes the position that section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination 

on the basis of handicapping condition for employees in the executive branch, does not apply to 

GAO, an agency in the legislative branch.4 However, with respect to the prohibitions against 

discrimination, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act each contains cross-references to the other, so 

that their standards are in most respects substantially the same.5 

Furthermore, the GAOPA, as discussed above, preserves GAO employees’ substantive rights 

under applicable anti-discrimination laws, reiterates those rights, and requires that they be 

protected by the GAO personnel management system.6 

1 42 U.S.C. 12209(1)-(2). 

2 42 U.S.C. 12111-12117. 

3 42 U.S.C. 12112 (a). 

4 29 U.S.C. 791. The PAB has reserved judgment on this issue, because the GAOPA, as 

enacted, contains references specifically to the Rehabilitation Act. See statement of PAB, 58 

Fed. Reg. 61988, 61990 (Nov. 23, 1993). These and other references to specific antidiscrimination laws are omitted from the GAOPA language that Congress codified in Title 31, 

U.S. Code. See 31 U.S.C. 732 (historical and revision notes). 

5 29 U.S.C. 791(g); 42 U.S.C. 12201(a). 

6 The GAOPA requires that personnel actions be taken without regard to “handicapping 

condition.” The term “handicapping condition” is the term that was used in section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act before it was amended to conform to the ADA, which uses the term 

“individual with a disability.” 

- 21 -
Regulations 

GAO’s current regulations establishing the GAO personnel system restate the language in the 

GAOPA prohibiting discrimination, and also define prohibited personnel practices, based on civil 

service law, to include discrimination: “[o]n the basis of handicapping condition, as prohibited 

under section 501 of [the Rehabilitation Act].”1 On August 28, 1996, GAO published a proposal 

to amend these regulations by striking references to the Rehabilitation Act and replacing them 

with references to the ADA.2 In addition, GAO and the PAB have each issued regulations 

governing how they will handle ADA complaints, which are described below. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Section 509 of the ADA states that nothing in that section shall alter “the enforcement procedures 

for individuals with disabilities” provided in the GAOPA. Under the GAOPA, GAO provides the 

same administrative processes for ADA complaints as it provides for Title VII complaints 

(described above in the section on Title VII). 

However, the CAA added a new paragraph (5) to section 509 of the ADA, providing that the 

“remedies and procedures” of section 717 of Title VII shall be available to employees of the 

congressional instrumentalities covered by section 509 who allege a violation of sections 102 

through 104 of the ADA, including a GAO employee, except that the authorities of the EEOC are 

to be exercised by the head of the instrumentality.3 Under section 717, the EEOC hears appeals 

from employing agencies’ disposition of discrimination complaints, and has oversight 

responsibility of employing agencies’ EEO programs. GAO management, in its comments, 

has stated that this provision appears inconsistent with the GAOPA, which provides that the 

PAB, not the Comptroller General, exercises the EEOC’s authority over appeals and oversight 

matters. 

Judicial 

Civil Action 

As noted above, paragraph (5) of ADA section 509, which was added by the CAA, states that 

the “remedies and procedures” of section 717 of Title VII shall be available to a GAO 

employee who alleges a violation of sections 102 through 104 of the ADA. Considered 

1 4 C.F.R. 2.5(a)(4). Apparently quoting from the GAOPA as enacted, this GAO regulation 

also states: “Nothing in this order shall be construed to abolish or diminish any right or 

remedy granted to employees of or applicants for employment in GAO— . . . (4) by sections 

501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791, 794a) . . . .” 

2 61 Fed. Reg. 44187 (Aug. 28, 1996). 

3 41 U.S.C. 12209(5), as added by section 201(c)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

- 22 -
without reference to the GAOPA, section 509(5) could be interpreted to entitle GAO 

employees to file a civil action at corresponding points in the administrative process at GAO. 

However, as discussed above in the context of Title VII, the court in Ramey v. Bowsher1 held 

that a GAO employee could not file a civil action in district court under Title VII after having 

received a final PAB decision, and the court stated that the GAOPA forecloses filing a civil 

action after a GAO employee “invokes the Board’s adjudicatory authority in a discrimination 

case.”2 

Section 509(5) of the ADA makes the remedies and procedures of section 717 of Title VII 

available for violations of sections 101-104 of the ADA, which establish the basic prohibition 

of employment discrimination and defenses. The study has identified two areas of 

inconsistency in coverage. Section 509(5) does not refer to ADA section 503, which prohibits 

retaliation against employees for exercising ADA rights. The omission of section 503 from 

the provisions referenced in section 509(5) may prevent a district court from granting a remedy 

for GAO employees who suffer retaliation for exercising ADA rights. 

Second, section 509(5) of the ADA applies to “any employee” of GAO, but does not refer to 

applicants for employment. The definition of “employee” in the ADA does not include 

applicants,3 who are referenced specifically, along with employees, in relevant ADA 

provisions.4 It could therefore be argued that applicants for employment at GAO cannot 

invoke the remedies provided by section 509(5), including the right to file a civil action. 

Appellate Review of Agency Administrative Processes 

In a case alleging discrimination made unlawful under the GAOPA, a final decision of the 

PAB may be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.5 

Relief 

Section 509(5) applies the remedies and procedures “set forth in” section 717 of Title VII (see 

discussion above). 

1 Ramey v. Bowsher, 9 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

2 9 F.3d at 136.

3 See 42 U.S.C. section 12111(4).

4 See 42 U.S.C. section 12112(b).

5 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(1), 753(a)(7), 755.

- 23 -
THE EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963 

(EPA) 

Substantive Rights 

GAO and its employees are covered by the provisions of the EPA, which were enacted as section 

6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).1 The coverage of the FLSA includes any 

individual employed by the U.S. Government “in any executive agency (as defined in section 105 

of such title [5 of the U.S. Code],” and GAO comes within this statutory definition of an 

“executive agency.”2 

These same provisions are generally applicable to both federal sector and private sector 

employees. The EPA prohibits any employer from discriminating “between employees on the 

basis of sex by paying wages to employees . . . at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages 

to employees of the opposite sex” when they perform substantially equal work under similar 

working conditions in the same establishment. The FLSA also contains a general prohibition 

against retaliation, which prohibits discrimination for instituting or testifying in a proceeding under 

or related to the FLSA (including EPA).3 Furthermore, the GAOPA, as discussed above, 

preserves GAO employees’ substantive rights under applicable anti-discrimination laws, including 

the EPA, and also reiterates those rights and requires that they be protected by the GAO 

personnel management system.4 

Regulations 

GAO’s regulations establishing the GAO personnel system restate the language of the GAOPA 

prohibiting discrimination,5 and also define prohibited personnel practices, based on civil service 

law, to include discrimination “[o]n the basis of sex, as prohibited under section 6(d) of [the 

FLSA].”6 

1 29 U.S.C. 206(d). 

2 The definition of an “executive agency” in 5 U.S.C. 105 includes: an executive department, a 

government corporation, and an independent establishment, and 5 U.S.C. 104(2) includes 

GAO within the definition of “independent establishment.” 

3 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). 

4 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(1)(A), (2). 

5 4 C.F.R. 7.2(a). 

6 4 C.F.R. 2.5(a)(3). 

- 25 -
Procedures 

Administrative 

The administrative processes at GAO for EPA violations are the same as those for Title VII

violations, as described above in the section on Title VII.

Judicial

Civil Action. GAO employees are entitled under the EPA to file a civil action in federal district

court.1 The FLSA (of which the EPA is a part) authorizes a civil action in any court of competent

jurisdiction. Jury trials are ordinarily not available against the federal government without express

statutory authority, and, therefore, are probably not available in EPA cases against GAO or other

federal agencies.2

Appellate Review of Agency Administrative Processes. In a case alleging discrimination

made unlawful under the GAOPA, a final decision of the PAB may be reviewed by the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.3

Relief 

In case of a violation of the EPA, a GAO employee may recover: any amounts withheld from an 

employee in violation of EPA requirements; and also an additional equal amount as liquidated 

damages, except that liquidated damages may be excused if the employer shows that its act or 

omission was in good faith.4 

1 Section 16(b) of the FLSA authorizes the filing of a civil action. 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

2 See Walker v. Thomas, 678 F. Supp. 164 (E.D. Mich. 1987) (denying a jury trial in an EPA 

case against a federal employer). 

3 31 U.S.C. 732(f)(1), 753(a)(7), 755. 

4 See 29 U.S.C. 206(d)(3), 216(b), 260. 

- 26 -
ALL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

The basic prohibitions against discrimination under the anti-discrimination laws (Title VII, ADEA, 

ADA and EPA) at GAO are generally the same as those afforded other federal sector employees, 

those in the private sector, and other legislative branch employees covered under the CAA. 

The issue of retaliation, however, is somewhat more complicated. In this area, GAO employees 

like other federal sector employees enjoy broad protections for asserting retaliation claims arising 

under laws prohibiting discrimination. They can seek administrative remedies under GAOPA. 

They are also covered specifically under Title VII and EPA and can, therefore, gain access to 

federal district court in claims of retaliation under Title VII and EPA. But the law is uncertain 

with respect to ADEA and ADA violations. By comparison, covered legislative branch employees 

are protected by section 207 of the CAA, which prohibits retaliation for exercise of rights with 

respect to any law made applicable by the CAA, including the anti-discrimination laws, and 

private sector employees are protected under specific statutory retaliation provisions in antidiscrimination laws. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The procedural avenues open to GAO employees are analogous to those in the executive branch, 

in that the employing agency administers the initial dispute resolution procedures and renders a 

decision, after which appeal is available to a separate administrative tribunal -- yielding a process 

that is thorough, but can be duplicative and lengthy. The GAO personnel system also includes 

enforcement mechanisms for monitoring compliance and detecting violations. The General 

Counsel of the PAB has authority to take enforcement actions in discrimination cases, including 

investigation of allegations (with or without a charge having been filed), and seek corrective 

action or stays and disciplinary action. Although similar investigatory and prosecutorial 

authorities are available in the executive branch at the EEOC and the Office of Special Counsel 

and in the private sector at the EEOC, there is no comparable authority under the CAA. 

Independence is an important aspect of a comprehensive and effective administrative process in 

resolving employee complaints. Both the GAOPA and the CAA establish independent avenues for 

adjudication structured on a model analogous to independent regulatory commissions like the 

EEOC and the MSPB — boards composed of members with staggered terms, no reappointment, 

and subject to limited powers of removal. The PAB General Counsel — who is selected by the 

- 27 -
Chair and serves at the pleasure of the Chair, albeit formally appointed by the Comptroller 

General — has statutory responsibility for certain investigatory and prosecutorial functions, and 

has been assigned by the PAB the additional responsibility of representing claimants in PAB 

proceedings. Under the CAA, the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance is a statutory 

appointee selected by the Chair with the approval of the Board, but has no investigatory or 

prosecutorial authority in EEO cases. The CAA instead establishes a dispute resolution process 

that provides confidential counseling and mediation and an independent administrative hearing. 

The degree of independence of the PAB from GAO management, and the degree of independence 

and accountability of the PAB General Counsel, were addressed in several comments. One 

employee organization described widespread dissatisfaction among GAO employees with the 

performance of the GAO and the PAB in personnel matters, arising largely from a perceived lack 

of independence of the PAB and its General Counsel. However, another employee organization 

commented that the PAB does seem to act independently and without bias. 

Some commenters expressed concern that the PAB is administratively part of GAO and its Board 

members and General Counsel are appointed by the head of GAO — the agency that is the subject 

of PAB’s jurisdiction. In contrast, under the CAA, the Board of Directors of the Office of 

Compliance is established outside of either the House or the Senate or any congressional 

instrumentality. In enacting the CAA, the Congress was mindful that placing the Board outside of 

either House of Congress, with jurisdiction spanning both Houses, was essential for the laws to 

“be enforced in a fair and uniform manner — and employees and the public [to] be convinced that 

the laws are being enforced in a fair and uniform manner.”1 

An employee organization also commented that the GAO Civil Rights Office and the process for 

addressing discrimination complaints are compromised and lack credibility. Further, this 

commenter stated that although mediation services are available, they are provided by agency staff 

who are responsible for implementing the agency’s civil rights and other programs, and are 

controlled by agency management. According to this commenter, employees are reluctant to use 

these resources because they are not independent and may not be neutral. Under the CAA, 

counseling and mediation services are provided to all covered employees who allege 

discrimination. The mediators are trained neutrals who are not employees of the Office of 

Compliance and the confidentiality of the process is guaranteed by statute, and is provided for in 

Office of Compliance procedural regulations. Mediation has only recently been provided on a 

pilot basis for private sector discrimination claims. Alternative dispute resolution in the form of 

1 141 Cong. Rec. S444 col. 1 (daily ed. Jan. 5, 1995). See also Report of the Senate 

Committee on Governmental Affairs to accompany H.R. 4822, S. Rep. No. 103-397, 103d 

Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (Oct. 3, 1994); testimony of Norman Ornstein (Resident Scholar, American 

Enterprise Institute) before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, S. Hrg. 103-

1047, at 28-29 (June 29, 1994). 

- 28 -
mediation is provided in the executive branch EEO process in some agencies.1 

Section 201(c)(3)(E) of the CAA, while granting employees of GAO (and the other two 

instrumentalities) administrative and judicial procedures for ADA violations, provides that the 

authorities of the EEOC will be exercised by the head of the employing instrumentality. GAO has 

suggested that the law be clarified to assure that this provision does not affect the PAB’s 

authority to decide claims alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. 

Judicial 

Employees at GAO may file a civil action under anti-discrimination laws at various points after 

filing an administrative complaint, or as an alternative to filing an administrative complaint in the 

case of an ADEA or EPA claim. But as discussed above, the Ramey decision left some legal 

uncertainty as to when, and whether, any of the anti-discrimination laws provides any right to 

GAO employees to file a civil action in federal district court. 

Under the CAA, covered legislative branch employees may elect to file a civil action in federal 

district court after counseling and mediation. Employees in the private sector may obtain a “right 

to sue notice” from the EEOC. 

Under the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act, jury trials are generally available in Title VII 

and ADA cases. Like other federal sector employees, GAO employees have a right to a jury trial 

under Title VII and the ADA, but probably not under ADEA and EPA. Jury trials are generally 

available in EEO cases for private sector employees, as well as for covered legislative branch 

employees under the CAA. 

Judicial Review. Final PAB decisions are subject to appellate judicial review by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Similar appellate review by the Federal Circuit is available for 

final decisions of the Office of Compliance Board under the CAA. 

In the executive branch, by contrast, EEOC decisions may not be appealed to the court of 

appeals, but the employee retains the right to file a civil action in federal district court even after 

seeking or receiving EEOC review of the employing agency’s decision. Executive branch 

employees may file a civil action and seek a jury trial de novo either after receiving a final decision 

from the EEOC, or after the appeal to the EEOC has been pending for 180 days without a final 

decision having been made. One GAO employee organization commented that, as a result of 

Ramey, GAO employees do not have a right that is enjoyed by employees of the executive branch. 

As the organization explained, if a GAO employee elects to appeal to the PAB, but is not satisfied 

with the result, the employee has forfeited a right to a jury trial. 

1 Under the CAA, Capitol Police and Architect of the Capitol employees have the option, if the 

Executive Director so recommends, of using the grievance procedures administered by each 

of these employing offices. Section 401 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1401. 

- 29 -
Relief 

The relief available to GAO employees for EEO violations is generally the same as that available 

to other legislative branch employees covered under the CAA, as well as for executive branch and 

private sector employees. However, two kinds of damages are available to private sector 

employees and covered employees under the CAA, but are not available to GAO or executive 

branch employees: compensatory damages for discrimination involving race, ancestry, and 

ethnicity, under 42 U.S.C. 1981; and liquidated damages in the case of a willful violation of the 

ADEA, in an amount equal to the amount owing as a result of the violation. 

In addition, certain punitive damages and penalties are available against private sector employers 

in Title VII and ADA cases that are not available against federal government employers, including 

both employing offices under the CAA, and GAO. 

Process for Issuing Substantive Regulations 

The process for issuing substantive regulations is relatively less important in the EEO area; 

neither the EEOC nor the Office of Compliance have substantive ruelmaking authority under Title 

VII; and the Comptroller General’s regulations do little more than restate the statutory rights 

against discrimination. 

Timeliness in Resolving EEO Complaints 

The PAB regularly reports on timeliness in the GAO internal case handling process. In its 1995 

report, 1 the PAB found that, in the 17 discrimination cases in which final agency decisions were 

issued in FY 1993-1995, it took an average of 581 days from the filing of a formal complaint to 

the issuance of a final decision. The PAB report concluded this was well below the average for 

other federal agencies. 

The PAB also submitted data indicating that its case processing times compare favorably with 

those of the EEOC and of the MSPB. For example, the PAB reported that its average case 

processing time over an approximately 2-1/2 year period through May 1996 was 277 days, 

compared with an average complaint resolution time at the EEOC of 356 days for FY94. 

1 GAO Personnel Appeals Board, “GAO's Discrimination Complaint Process and Mediation 

Program,” Chap. 2 (Formal Complaint Process) (September 29, 1995). The PAB determined 

that, according to the most current EEOC statistics available for 74 executive branch 

agencies, GAO would fall in the bottom one-third for average case-processing time. 

- 30 -
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993 

(FMLA) 

Substantive Rights 

While the private sector, state and local governments, and certain federal agencies and 

employees are covered by FMLA provisions codified in title 29 of the United States Code 

(FMLA private-sector provisions), most federal agencies and employees, including those at 

GAO, are covered by the provisions that were added by the FMLA to the civil service law, 

codified in title 5 of the U.S. Code (FMLA civil service provisions).1 

The FMLA entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month 

period for certain family and medical reasons. The employee may elect to substitute accrued 

sick leave or annual leave for the unpaid FMLA leave. The employing agency must maintain 

group health coverage for the employee on leave, and, in most cases, must restore the 

employee to the same or an equivalent position upon returning from the leave. The FMLA 

also forbids intimidation, coercion or threats to interfere with an employee’s exercise of 

FMLA rights. 

Regulations 

OPM has issued regulations implementing the FMLA civil service provisions, applicable to all 

employees covered by those provisions and their employing agencies, including GAO and its 

employees.2 

When the FMLA went into effect in 1993, GAO issued a Personnel Management 

Memorandum advising all division and office heads of the legislation and of OPM’s interim 

regulations, and directing that employees be notified of their rights and that records be 

maintained.3 GAO issued additional Personnel Management Memoranda, GAO Orders, and 

other documents establishing and describing GAO’s general leave policies and procedures and 

other programs designed to carry out the intent of the FMLA. 

1 5 U.S.C. 6381-6387, added by Pub. L. No. 103-3, title II, 107 Stat. 19 (Feb. 5, 1993). Most 

employees of agencies headed by Presidential appointees are included within the coverage of 

the FMLA civil service provisions, and the Comptroller General is such a Presidential 

appointee. See 5 U.S.C. 2105(a)(1)(A), (D), 6301(2)(A), 6381(1)(A). 

2 5 C.F.R. 630.1201-630.1211. 

3 GAO Personnel Management Memorandum No. 2630-5, “The Family and Medical Leave Act 

of 1993 (FMLA) Posting and Reporting Requirements” (August 3, 1993). 

- 31 -
Procedures 

Administrative 

The FMLA civil service provisions do not provide any administrative or judicial processes by 

which employees may seek redress for violations. Therefore, employees who believe their 

rights have been violated must rely on the various remedial provisions available generally for 

employment-related disputes in the federal government. For example: 

C If a GAO employee believes the agency has violated rights and protections under the 

FMLA, the employee may file a claim under GAO’s general administrative grievance 

procedure. 

C If an employee suffers a removal, reduction in pay or grade, or other appealable 

adverse action, under the GAOPA the employee has a right to appeal to the PAB.1 

Under civil service appeals authority on which the PAB’s authority is modeled, the 

MSPB has ruled that it has jurisdiction over the FMLA as a defense to an otherwise 

appealable action, and: “If an adverse action is predicated on the agency’s erroneous 

interference with an employee’s rights under the FMLA, such adverse action is in 

violation of law, and it may not be sustained.”2 

C A GAO employee who believes the agency has violated the FMLA could ask the PAB 

to hear a FMLA complaint alleging that a prohibited personnel practice has occurred. 

C A GAO employee who has a claim arising from an FMLA violation could seek redress 

by applying to OPM under its statutory responsibility to receive and settle federal 

employees’ claims against the government.3 

1 31 U.S.C. 753(a)(1). 

2 Ramey v. U.S.P.S., 70 M.S.P.R. 463, 467 (May 9, 1996) (citing 5 U.S.C. 7701(c)(2)(C)). 

3 The authority to settle claims against the government has historically been assigned to GAO 

under 31 U.S.C. 3702. However, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, 

transferred this claims settlement authority to OMB as of June 30, 1996, subject to delegation. 

Sec. 211, Pub. L. No.104-53, 109 Stat. 535-536 (1995), set out at 31 U.S.C. 501 note. OMB 

has delegated the authority to settle employee claims to OPM. 

- 32 -
Judicial 

A GAO employee who appeals to the PAB may obtain review of the PAB’s decision by the 

court of appeals. In appropriate cases, a GAO employee may also bring suit in the Court of 

Federal Claims for money owed by the government as a result of an FMLA violation, and may 

seek restoration to position and correction of records, if warranted, as an incident to a 

monetary judgment. If the claim does not exceed $10,000, the employee may sue in federal 

district court.1 

Relief 

Since the FMLA civil service provisions do not specify what relief would be available in case 

of a violation, an aggrieved employee must rely on other laws or on general legal principles to 

obtain relief. For example, if an employee is demoted or fired or denied restoration, the 

employee may claim compensation due under the Back Pay Act.2 The employee may also seek 

to recover the amount of benefits guaranteed by the FMLA that are unlawfully denied and are 

therefore due and owing from the government. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

The CAA amends the FMLA to remove GAO from coverage under the civil service FMLA 

provisions, and places GAO under the private sector FMLA provisions.3 The amendment 

becomes effective one year after this study is transmitted to Congress. Although the basic 

entitlement — up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave in a 12-week period — is the 

same, there are several significant differences in particular substantive provisions. 

Under the private sector FMLA provisions, damages may include salary and benefits lost, or 

actual monetary losses such as the cost of providing care (up to 12 weeks’-worth of salary), 

plus an equal amount of liquidated damages unless the employer proves that the act or 

omission was in good faith.4 

As amended by the CAA, the FMLA private sector provisions state that, in the case of GAO, 

1 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), 1491(a). 

2 5 U.S.C. 5596 

3 Section 202(c)(1)(A), (2) of the CAA, amending sections 101(4)(A) and 107 of the FMLA, 

29 U.S.C. 2611(4)(A), 2617, and 5 U.S.C. 6381(1)(A). 

4 29 U.S.C. 2617(a)(1). 

- 33 -
the authority of the Secretary of Labor is to be exercised by the Comptroller General.1 The 

Labor Secretary’s FMLA authority includes the responsibility to promulgate such regulations 

as are necessary to carry out the provisions, as well as certain enforcement responsibilities.2 

GAO and its employees would thus be removed from coverage by the FMLA regulations 

promulgated by OPM, which apply generally to employees under the FMLA civil service 

provisions, and would apparently become subject to regulations that the Comptroller General 

would promulgate to implement the private sector provisions of the FMLA. 

The private sector FMLA provisions authorize employees to bring a civil action for FMLA 

violation to recover damages and obtain equitable relief.3 However, jury trials are ordinarily 

not available against the federal government without express statutory authority,4 and, since 

the FMLA provision has no express authority for a jury trial, in a case against GAO under the 

private sector FMLA provisions, jury trials might not be available. 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

All of the relevant statutory programs provide the same basic substantive entitlement — up to 

12 weeks of job-protected leave in a 12-month period for family and medical purposes. 

However, there are significant differences in eligibility criteria and substantive rights. 

Generally, employees are granted greater substantive rights under the civil service FMLA 

provisions than under the FMLA provisions that apply in the private sector and that are also 

made applicable by the CAA. Therefore, transferring GAO employees from the coverage of 

Title 5 to the coverage of Title 29 will reduce their substantive FMLA rights. 

Eligibility Criteria. The civil service provisions, the private sector provisions, and the CAA 

all prescribe different criteria that an employee must meet to be eligible for FMLA leave: 

C Under the GAO/civil service provisions, employees become eligible by working 

at least 12 months at GAO or any other federal civil service agency, except that 

1 Section 107(f) of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. 2617(f), as added by section 202(c)(1)(B) of the 

CAA. 

2 29 U.S.C section 2654 (Secretary to promulgate regulations); 29 U.S.C. section 2617(b) 

(Action by the Secretary). 

3 29 U.S.C. 2617(a)(2). 

4 See generally Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981). 

- 34 -
C

“temporary and intermittent” employees are excluded from coverage.1 

C Under the private sector provisions, which the CAA would apply to GAO in the 

future, employees become eligible by having worked for at least 12 months for 

an employer, and at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12 months for that 

employer.2 

C Under the CAA, employees becomes eligible by working at least 12 months at 

any employing office covered under the CAA, and for at least 1,250 hours 

during the previous 12 months for any such employing office.3 

The “temporary and intermittent” criterion is already widely used in the civil service personnel 

system for determining eligibility for benefits programs, including annual and sick leave, 

health benefits, and life insurance benefits.4 

Of the three eligibility criteria, only the private sector provisions afford no portability. The 

civil service provisions allow an eligible employee to transfer among federal agencies without 

losing eligibility, and the CAA allows an eligible employee to transfer among employing 

offices without losing eligibility. After the private sector provisions go into effect at GAO, an 

eligible employee who transfers to GAO from any other federal agency or employing office 

would lose eligibility until after having worked 12 months and 1,250 hours in the previous 12 

months for GAO. 

Specific FMLA Rights. The specific FMLA rights afforded to eligible employees under the 

civil service provisions differ in several respects from those accorded under the private sector 

provisions and the CAA. In each of these instances, the civil service provisions — which 

apply now to GAO — provide greater FMLA substantive rights than the private sector and 

CAA provisions. When the FMLA amendments made by the CAA go into effect, and the 

private sector provisions become applicable to GAO, the substantive rights of GAO employees 

under FMLA will be diminished: 

C Employee choice of which kind of leave to take. Under the FMLA private 

sector and CAA provisions, the employer may require the employee to take 

accrued paid leave rather than unpaid FMLA leave, and, if the employee 

chooses to take paid leave for FMLA purposes, the employer may charge the 

1 See 5 U.S.C. 6381(1)(A). 

2 See section 202(a)(2)(B) of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1312(a)(2)(B)). 

3 See section 202(a)(2)(B) of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1312(a)(2)(B)). 

- 35 -
leave against the employee’s FMLA entitlement.1 Under civil service 

provisions, it is entirely the employee’s option whether to take accrued paid 

leave or unpaid FMLA leave, and whether paid leave should be charged against 

the FMLA entitlement.2 

C Employer recoupment of health insurance contribution. Under the FMLA 

private sector and CAA provisions, if the employee fails to return to work for 

reasons not beyond the employee’s control, the amount paid by the employer for 

health coverage during unpaid FMLA leave may be recovered from the 

employee.3 The civil service provisions contain no such provision.4 

C Restoration of “key” employees. Under the private sector and CAA provisions, 

an employer may deny restoration to certain highly-paid “key” employees, if 

such denial is necessary to prevent substantial and grievous economic injury to 

the operations of the employing office.5 The civil service provisions contain no 

such provision.6 

C Spouses working for the same employing office. Under the private sector and 

CAA provisions, if a husband and wife work for the same employer, their 

FMLA leave upon birth or placement for adoption or foster care of a child, or 

to care for a sick parent, may be limited to 12 workweeks in a 12 month period 

in the aggregate. The civil service provisions contain no such provision. 

1 See 29 U.S.C. 2612(d)(2), made applicable by section 202(a)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 

1312(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. 825.208; section 825.208 of the Office of Compliance Board’s Family 

and Medical Leave regulations. 

2 See 5 U.S.C. 6382(d); 5 C.F.R. 630.1203(h), 630.1205(d). 

3 See 29 U.S.C. 2614(c)(2), made applicable by section 202(a)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 

1312(a)(1). 

4 See 5 U.S.C. 6386; 5 C.F.R. 630.1209. 

5 See 29 U.S.C. 2614(b), made applicable by section 202(a)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 

1312(a)(1). 

6 See 5 U.S.C. 6384(a); 5 C.F.R. 630.1208(a). 

- 36 -
Procedures 

Administrative 

The CAA provides a single administrative process for any FMLA claim, starting with 

counseling and mediation, and then offering the option of a formal administrative adjudication 

and appeal. By contrast, civil service law has no single administrative remedy for FMLA 

claims. Instead, several different administrative routes may be available for an employee 

seeking redress, depending on the nature of the employee’s alleged harm. The PAB offers a 

measure of independence, but only if the case fits within a category that the PAB has statutory 

authority to hear, such as certain adverse actions or prohibited personnel practices. GAO’s 

administrative grievance procedure would generally be available for FMLA claims that may 

not be presented to the PAB, but does not offer a process independent of GAO management. 

OPM’s claims settlement process is available, but only if the claim is for money owed by the 

Government. 

The future-effective CAA provisions would not substantially change this situation, however, 

because the private sector provisions of the FMLA do not afford administrative remedies. The 

Comptroller General would assume the statutory authority of the Secretary of Labor to 

“receive, investigate, and attempt to resolve complaints of [FMLA] violations,”1 but GAO 

management already has this authority and responsibility under the administrative grievance 

procedures. 

Judicial 

The judicial remedies available under civil service law in case of an FMLA violation are less 

protective of employee rights than those under the private sector law and the CAA. As is the 

case with administrative processes, the civil service law does not establish a judicial remedy 

for FMLA claims, but, depending on the particular circumstances, there may be avenues by 

which an employee can seek judicial redress for an FMLA violation. For example, an 

employee who is owed money could seek to collect it by suing in the Court of Federal Claims. 

In contrast, employees in the private sector, or legislative branch employees covered under the 

CAA, may file a civil action in federal district court to seek redress of any FMLA violation, 

and the right to a jury trial applies under the CAA to the same extent as in the private sector. 

When private sector provisions go into effect at GAO, employees there would be granted the 

same access to federal district court, but probably without the right to a jury trial. 

Relief 

Unlike the civil service FMLA provisions, which do not specify what relief will be available in 

case of violation, the private sector FMLA provisions specify available relief explicitly. Such 

relief may include: 

1 29 U.S.C. 2617(b)(1). 

- 37 -
C Such equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment, 

reinstatement, and promotion. 

C Salary, benefits, or other compensation wrongly denied. 

C The cost of providing care, or any other actual monetary losses sustained as a 

direct result of the violation, up to a sum equal to 12 weeks of wages or salary 

for the employee, in a case in which salary and benefits have not been denied or 

lost. 

C Liquidated damages, equal to the sum of other damages to which the employee 

is entitled, including lost salary and benefits or the cost of providing care. (The 

court may reduce or dispense with the liquidated damages if the employer 

proves that the violation was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable 

grounds for believing that the FMLA was not being violated.) 

Recovery of the cost of providing care, and an equal amount of liquidated damages, would be 

an especially important remedy in a situation where an employer has discouraged an employee 

from taking FMLA leave because the employer does not agree that the employee is entitled. 

These forms of relief, as specified in the private sector FMLA provisions, are made applicable 

to other legislative branch employees by the CAA, and would also became available under the 

future-effective CAA provisions applicable to GAO.1 

1 FMLA civil service provisions also make no provision for attorneys fees. GAO employees 

with FMLA-related disputes would have to rely on other available authority, such as EAJA, 

the Back Pay Act, or PAB regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the 

circumstances of a particular case. 

- 38 -
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 

(FLSA) 

Substantive Rights 

Like most federal agencies, GAO and its employees have been covered under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) since enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 

1974.1 The FLSA requires payment of the minimum wage and overtime compensation for over 

40 hours of work in a workweek to nonexempt employees, and restricts child labor. Employees 

employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity are exempt from the 

basic wage and hour standards. Except for employees to whom these or other specific 

exemptions or exclusions apply, employees are entitled to: (i) a minimum wage, currently $4.75 

an hour, and (ii) overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not 

less than 1-1/2 times the employee’s regular rate of pay. Overtime compensation owed to an 

employee may not be reduced by compensatory time off, except as specifically authorized by 

statute. The minimum-wage and overtime-pay entitlements at GAO are also governed by 

implementing regulations promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).2 

Regulations and Civil Service Statutes 

GAO and its employees are also covered under the premium pay provisions of the civil service

statutes and OPM’s regulations, which entitle certain Federal employees to overtime pay for

hours of work in excess of 40 in a workweek or 8 in a day.3 Furthermore, the civil service

statutes and OPM regulations on premium pay and on flexible and compressed work

schedules,4 which also apply to GAO and its employees, provide several statutory exceptions

1 See 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(A)(ii), added by section 6(a) of Pub. L. No. 93-259, 88 Stat. 58 

(April 8, 1974). This provisions refers to “any executive agency (as defined in section 105 of 

such title [5, United States Code].” 5 U.S.C. 105 defines “executive agency” to include an 

independent establishment, and 5 U.S.C. 104(2) includes GAO within the definition of 

“independent establishment.” 

2 5 C.F.R. part 551. 

3 5 U.S.C. 5541-5550a. OPM’s FLSA regulations at 5 C.F.R. part 551 specify additional 

requirements for overtime pay pursuant to the civil service Premium Pay provisions, so that 

employees who are covered by both the FLSA requirements and the Premium Pay provisions 

will get the benefit of both entitlements through application of these regulations. See 5 C.F.R. 

551.401(b), 551.501(a)(4). 

4 5 U.S.C. 6120-6133. 

- 39 -
from the overtime-pay requirements of the FLSA1

: 

C GAO may grant compensatory time off instead of overtime pay for an equal amount of 

irregular or occasional overtime work to employees upon request (other than a Federal 

Wage System (FWS)2 employee). 

C “Alternative work schedules” programs allow employees to work over their basic work 

requirement and accumulate “credit hours” or compensatory time off, or to complete 

the biweekly work requirement in less than 10 working days, without entitlement to 

overtime pay.3 

C GAO employees may elect to work overtime and be granted compensatory time off, 

instead of overtime pay, for time lost for the employee’s religious observances.4 

GAO Orders 

GAO applies the FLSA and applicable OPM regulations through GAO-issued orders: 

C GAO’s Order on Compensation for Overtime Work states that the basic 

entitlement to overtime pay and compensatory time is governed by applicable 

statutes and OPM regulations.5 The Order also establishes supplementary 

policies regarding accrual and use of compensatory time at GAO, including a 

“use-it-or-lose-it” rule for compensatory time, under which accrued hours of 

compensatory time in excess of 10 that GAO does not approve for carryover at 

the end of a year are lost to the employee, with no entitlement to pay.6 

1 OPM’s regulations codify the exceptions from overtime-pay requirement that are provided 

under civil service law. See 5 C.F.R. 550.1002(d), 551.209, 551.501(a)(6)-(7), 551.531. 

2 FWS employees are, in general terms, “blue collar” employees. FWS covers those employed 

in a trade or craft, or in a manual labor occupation, or a foreman or supervisor requiring trade, 

craft, or laboring experience and knowledge, whose pay is set under a prevailing wage system. 

See 5 U.S.C. 5342(a)(2)(A), 5541(2)(xi). 

3 See 5 U.S.C. 6123, 6128. 

4 See 5 U.S.C. 5550a. 

5 GAO Order No. 2550.1 (April 15, 1994). 

6 GAO has explained that this “use-it-or-lose-it” rule is only applied for employees who are 

exempt from the overtime-pay requirements of the FLSA, and that GAO plans to amend 

the Order to avoid any misunderstanding. Cf. OPM’s FLSA regulations at 5 C.F.R. 

(continued...) 

- 40 -
C GAO’s Memorandum on FLSA Coverage describes the process by which GAO 

determines which employees it will treat as exempt and which employees it will 

treat as non-exempt from FLSA coverage.1 For most occupational series or 

other employee categories, the memorandum states that positions in certain 

grade-levels or band-levels are exempt and positions in other levels are nonexempt.2 

Procedures 

Administrative

OPM’s FLSA compliance process and general claims settlement authority. The FLSA

provides that OPM administers the Act with respect to most federal employees, including

GAO employees.3 Under this authority, OPM accepts employees’ claims of violation,

conducts investigations, makes determinations of whether employees are exempt or nonexempt and whether payment is owed to an employee, and issues compliance orders against the

employing agency. Furthermore, OPM also has recently been assigned the statutory

responsibility to receive and settle monetary claims against the government by federal

employees.4 Under this process, GAO employees may seek redress if they believe they have a

claim arising from an FLSA violation.

GAO’s administrative grievance procedure. If a GAO employee believes the agency has

violated any of the rights and protections under the FLSA, the employee may file a claim

6 (...continued) 

551.531(d) (“If compensatory time off is not requested or taken within the established time 

limits [established by the employing agency], the employee must be paid for overtime work at 

the overtime rate . . . .”). 

1 GAO Personnel Management Memorandum No. 2511.1 (Feb. 14, 1990). 

2 GAO has advised that it is now preparing a revised memorandum on this subject. Among 

other things, the memorandum will emphasize that it is the actual duties and responsibilities 

being performed by the employee that determine an employee’s entitlement to overtime pay 

under the FLSA. 

3 See 29 U.S.C. 204(f); 5 C.F.R. 551.101(a). 

4 The authority to settle claims against the Government has historically been assigned to GAO 

under 31 U.S.C. 3702. However, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, 

transferred this claims settlement authority to OMB as of June 30, 1996, subject to delegation. 

Sec. 211, Pub. L.104-53, 109 Stat. 535-536 (1995), set out at 31 U.S.C. 501 note. OMB has 

delegated the authority to settle employee claims to OPM. 

- 41 -
under GAO’s administrative grievance procedure.1 

Judicial 

Under section 216(b) of the FLSA, an action to recover any unpaid compensation owed under 

the FLSA may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.2 Under the Tucker Act, 

FLSA actions by federal employees may be brought in the Claims Court or, if the amount 

claimed does not exceed $10,000, in an appropriate federal district court.3 

Relief 

Under the FLSA, employers, including federal agencies, shall be liable to the employee for 

unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation. The employer shall also be liable 

for liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid minimum wages or unpaid 

compensation, except that a court has discretion to reduce or dispense with the award of 

liquidated damages if the employer shows that the violation was in good faith and that the 

employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation. 

For a violation of the FLSA prohibition against retaliation, legal or equitable relief may be 

available, including employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and 

an additional amount of liquidated damages.4 The FLSA also provides that the court shall 

allow reasonable attorney’s fees.5 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

The basic FLSA requirements of minimum wage, overtime compensation, and child labor 

protections are substantially the same at GAO for working more than 40 hours in a work week 

as under the CAA. However, there is substantial difference with respect to the availability of 

compensatory time and other exceptions from overtime pay requirements. 

1 GAO order No. 2771.1 (May 12, 1989), as amended by GAO order No. 2771.1(A.92)(April 

12, 1992). 

2 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

3 28 U.S.C. 1346(a), 1491. See Parker v. King, 935 F.2d 1174,1178 (11th Cir. 1991) (section 

1346(a) case); Brooks v. Weinberger, 637 F. Supp 22. (D.D.C 1986) (same); Saraco v. U.S., 

130 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 33259 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (section 1491 case). 

4 29 U.S.C. 216(b), 260. 

5 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

- 42 -
As is generally the case among salaried workers in the federal sector, compensatory time, 

“credit hours,” and compressed schedules outside the FLSA overtime requirements are widely 

available — but only at the option of employees, and subject to a statutory prohibition of 

coercion. Compensatory time is less widely available under the CAA, but it can be required 

under limited circumstances for employees whose schedules depend directly on the schedule of 

the House or Senate, and it can be provided to Capitol Police law enforcement personnel at 

their request.1 

GAO employees are also entitled under civil service law to receive overtime compensation for 

working more than 8 hours in a day. This entitlement is not made applicable under the CAA. 

The FLSA includes a general prohibition against retaliation, forbidding discrimination against 

employees for filing an FLSA complaint, or testifying in a proceeding under or related to the 

FLSA.2 Unlike the retaliation provision in the CAA,3 which is based on the retaliation 

provisions in EEO laws, the FLSA does not prohibit retaliation for having “opposed any 

practice made unlawful.” 

Procedures 

Administrative 

A GAO employee may seek to resolve a FLSA dispute administratively, both within GAO’s 

general grievance process, and by application to OPM. These mechanisms do not include 

structured stages of counseling, mediation, and formal adjudication and appeal that are 

available under the CAA. OPM may investigate violations and issue corrective orders to 

federal agencies.4 No such investigative authority is established under the CAA. 

1 See sections 203(c)(3), (4) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1313(c)(3), (4). Subsection (c)(4), 

regarding the Capitol Police, was added by section 312 of Pub. L. No. 104-197, 110 Stat. 

2415 (Sept. 16, 1996). 

2 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3), 216(b). 

3 Section 207 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1317. 

4 5 C.F.R. 551.104; Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) letter No. 551.9 (March 30, 1996), 

which, according to OPM, continues to accurately describe OPM practices in spite of the 

elimination of the FPM system. 

- 43 -
Judicial 

Employees may file a civil action under the FLSA regardless of whether the employee pursued 

any administrative complaint processing. Under the CAA, a covered employee may file a civil 

action after counseling and mediation, plus an additional waiting period of 30 days. Thus, an 

employee who wishes to file a civil action without first filing an administrative complaint may 

do so under the FLSA as it applies at GAO, but not under the CAA. 

Since the constitutional right to a jury trial is available in appropriate FLSA cases in the 

private sector, the right to a jury trial is available to the same extent in FLSA cases under the 

CAA. However, jury trials are ordinarily not available against the federal government without 

express statutory authority,1 and, therefore, are probably not available in FLSA cases in the 

federal sector or against GAO or other federal agencies. 

Relief 

The unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, additional liquidated damages, 

and legal or equitable relief for retaliation, as provided in the FLSA, are available for a 

violation at GAO, elsewhere in the federal sector, in the private sector, and under the CAA. 

1 See, generally, Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981). 

- 44 -
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 

(OSHA) 

Substantive Rights 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act protects the safety and health of employees in their 

places of employment. GAO is currently covered by section 19 of OSHA, which requires the 

head of each federal agency to establish and maintain a comprehensive occupational safety and 

health program, consistent with the standards promulgated by the Secretary.1 This provision also 

requires agency heads to submit annual reports to the Secretary of Labor on occupational 

accidents and injuries, and on the status of the agency’s safety and health program.2 

The related provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7902, establishing safety programs, cover an agency “in any 

branch of the Government of the United States,”3 and therefore cover GAO. They are similar in 

their requirements to those of 29 U.S.C. 668, which also address safety and health programs of 

federal agencies. Executive Order 12196, which was promulgated under 5 U.S.C. 7905, and 

which sets forth specific duties for heads of federal agencies in establishing health and safety 

programs and requires executive branch agencies to comply with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. part 

1960, however, covers only executive branch agencies.4 Although GAO is not bound by the 

Executive Order, the agency does subscribe to its intent and has adopted comparable safety and 

health standards.5 

Regulations 

OSHA regulations issued by the Secretary are not binding on the legislative branch unless by 

agreement by the head of the agency.6 GAO does not have such an agreement with the Secretary, 

1 See 29 U.S.C. 668(a). “It shall be the responsibility of the head of each Federal agency to 

establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program 

which is consistent with the standards promulgated under section 655 of this title.” 

2 29 U.S.C. 668(a)(5). 

3 5 U.S.C. 7902(a)(2). 

4 See Executive Order 12196, February 26, 1980, as amended by Executive Order 12223, June 

30, 1980, and Executive Order 12608, September 9, 1987, section 1-102. 

5 See GAO Order 2792.4, Ch. 1 sec. 4(c) (February 8, 1996). 

6 See 29 C.F.R. 1960.2(b). (“By agreement between the Secretary of Labor and the head of an 

agency of the Legislative or Judicial branches of the Government, these regulations may be 

applicable to such agencies.”) 

- 45 -
and has therefore issued its own health and safety regulations.1 

GAO Order. Although the agency is not compelled to comply with the OSHA regulations issued 

by the Secretary, GAO has adopted portions of the relevant health and safety codes and 

standards, thereby making them applicable to the agency.2 Through the adoption of these codes 

and standards, GAO has developed a health and safety compliance program that includes periodic 

inspections of GAO facilities and equipment, monitoring procedures, counsel and assistance 

concerning health and safety to GAO employees, and evaluation and correction of health and 

safety issues. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

GAO employees who have complaints related to safety and health submit those complaints 

(preferably in writing) to the Unit or Site Health and Safety Representative, who will either 

resolve the complaint or solicit the assistance of General Service and Controller/Office of Real 

Property Services (GS&C/ORPS), as necessary. Upon request, complaints will remain 

anonymous. If the employee who filed the complaint has not received adequate resolution within 

30 days, he/she contacts the Director, Office of Security and Safety (GS&C/OSS).3 There is 

apparently no further review available to employees. Because the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration does not have enforcement authority over GAO, the administrative review process 

is self-enclosed internal process, and GAO employees may not go outside of the agency for 

further review of safety and health issues. 

1 See GAO Order 2792.4. 

2 See GAO Order 2792.4, Ch. 1 sec. 7(b). GAO has adopted applicable portions of the 

following codes and standards: 29 C.F.R. parts 1910, 1915-1919, 1926, and 1960; 40 C.F.R. 

part 763, sub-part E; 41 C.F.R. subtitle C, Chapter 101; PBS-P-3430.1A, Facilities Standards 

for Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA); PBS-P-5900, 

Safety and Environmental Management Program, GSA; National Fire Protection Association 

Codes and Standards; Building Officials and Code Administrators International Inc., Basic 

Building and Fire Codes; Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines; American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers A17.1, Safety Code for 

Elevators and Escalators; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 

Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices; Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) Standards; EM 385-1-1, Safety and Health Requirements Manual, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

3 See GAO Order 2792.4 at Ch. 3 sec. 3. 

- 46 -
GAO currently maintains an accident reporting and investigation program. 

1 Each Health and 

Safety Representative must maintain an Accident Reporting Log for the site by fiscal year.2 

Throughout the year all accidents, fires, and other emergencies, with or without injuries, should 

be thoroughly investigated by the Health and Safety Representative for the affected site.3 A copy 

of the resulting report must be submitted to the Health and Safety Staff, through unit 

management, no later than 30 days after the incident was reported.4 

Judicial 

Under current law no judicial remedies are available to GAO employees to redress safety and 

health issues. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

Pursuant to the CAA, one year after this Section 230 Study is transmitted to Congress, the 

provisions of section 215 implementing OSHA become applicable to GAO.5 

Section 215(a) of the CAA requires each employing office and each covered employee to comply 

with the provisions of section 5 of OSHA. Section 5(a) of OSHA provides that every covered 

employing office has a general duty to furnish each employee with employment and a place of 

employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious 

physical harm to those employees, and a specific duty to comply with occupational safety and 

health standards promulgated under the law.6 Section 5(b) requires covered employees to comply 

with occupational safety and health standards, and with all rules, regulations, and orders issued 

pursuant to OSHA that are applicable to their actions and conduct.7 

Under section 215(c) of the CAA, any employing office or covered employee may request the 

General Counsel to inspect and investigate places of employment under the jurisdiction of the 

employing offices. A citation or notice may be issued by the General Counsel to any employing 

1 Id.

2 See GAO Order 2792.4, Ch.3.

3 See id.

4 See id.

5 2 U.S.C. 1341(g)(2).

6 29 U.S.C. 654(a).

7 29 U.S.C. 654(b).

- 47 -
office that is responsible for correcting a violation of OSHA, or that has failed to correct a 

violation within the period permitted for correction.1 The citation is issued only against the 

employing office that is responsible for the particular violation, as determined by the regulations 

issued by the Board. If the violation is not corrected, the General Counsel may file a complaint 

against the employing office with the Office of Compliance. The complaint is then submitted to a 

hearing officer for decision, with subsequent review by the Board. 

Section 215(e) requires that the General Counsel on a regular basis, and at least once each 

Congress, conduct periodic inspections of all covered facilities and report to Congress on 

compliance with health and safety standards.2 

Section 215(d) of the CAA requires the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to issue 

regulations that are “the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to 

implement the statutory provisions referred to in subsection (a) except to the extent that the 

Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a 

modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights 

under this section.”3 

Section 11(c) of OSHA, prohibiting discharge or discrimination against an employee for exercise 

of the employee’s rights, is not one of the provisions of OSHA that was incorporated into the 

CAA by section 215. However, a GAO employee who believes that the agency has retaliated for 

exercising employee rights regarding OSHA might claim that this is a prohibited personnel 

practice under administrative procedures established by the GAOPA. Furthermore, after GAO 

and its employees become subject to the provisions in section 215 of the CAA, GAO and its 

employees will also become subject to the provisions of the CAA forbidding retaliation and 

establishing administrative and judicial dispute-resolution procedures.4 Assuming that these 

provisions do become applicable, a GAO employee alleging retaliation would be able to file an 

administrative complaint with the Office of Compliance or a civil action in district court. 

1 2 U.S.C. 1341(c). 

2 2 U.S.C. 1341(e). 

3 2 U.S.C. 1341(d). 

4 Sections 207 and 401-416 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1317, 1401-1416. 

- 48 -
EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

In making certain provisions of OSHA applicable to GAO, the CAA will impose additional 

obligations on the agency. Under the CAA, GAO will be required to adhere to the safety and 

health regulations issued by the Board under section 215(d), whereas GAO’s compliance with 

safety and health standards under OSHA is not now subject to enforcement by any entity outside 

of GAO.1 However, in satisfying its requirement to issue regulations, the Board has determined 

that all regulations promulgated by the Secretary to implement section 5 of OSHA are 

“substantive regulations” within the meaning of section 215(d).2 The Board has therefore 

proposed to adopt all otherwise applicable substantive health and safety standards of the 

Secretary’s regulations published at 29 C.F.R. parts 1910 and 1926, with only limited 

modifications.3 GAO already purports to comply with applicable federal laws and regulations, 

including the health and safety standards published at 29 C.F.R. parts 1910 and 1926.4 Therefore, 

despite the fact that GAO’s compliance with safety and health standards under the CAA will be 

subject to enforcement by an outside entity, the promulgation of external safety and health 

regulations under the CAA may not have the practical effect of changing the working environment 

of GAO employees. 

Retaliation 

The CAA will, however, provide GAO employees with a right to bring a civil action for 

intimidation, discrimination or reprisal actions taken by an employing office because the employee 

has opposed a practice made unlawful by the CAA, or because the employee has initiated 

proceedings, made a charge, or testified, assisted, or participated in a hearing or proceeding under 

the CAA.5 Section 11(c) of OSHA, prohibiting discharge or discrimination against an employee 

for exercise of the employee’s rights, is not one of the provisions of OSHA that was incorporated 

into the CAA in section 215. However, the general anti-retaliation provision in section 207 of the 

CAA prohibits retaliation against a covered employee for exercising rights under the CAA, 

1 141 Cong. Rec. S11020 (daily ed. Sept. 19, 1996). 

2 See, e.g., 142 Cong. Rec. S11019, S11020 (daily ed. September 19, 1996) (Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making implementing section 215 of the CAA). 

3 See id. 

4 See GAO Order 27924.4, Ch.1 sec. 7(b). 

5 2 U.S.C. 1317. 

- 49 -
including the rights and protections of section 215.1 

Administrative 

Under present law, GAO has an internal investigation and administrative grievance process to 

address employee safety and health complaints.2 Under the CAA, however, the General Counsel 

of the Office of Compliance will exercise the authority to investigate and inspect places of 

employment, as well as issue citations and prosecute violations that are not corrected by the 

employing office named in the citation or notification.3 

The CAA grants the General Counsel the authority under subsections (a), (d), (e), and (f) of 

section 8 of OSHA to inspect places of employment under the jurisdiction of employing offices, 

upon written request of any employing office or covered employee.4 Section 8 of OSHA 

establishes the authority of the Secretary of Labor to conduct inspections of work sites in the 

private sector.5 Section 215 of the CAA, however, sets forth the inspection authority of the 

General Counsel in different terms than section 8 of OSHA. Subject to the constraints of the 

fourth amendment,6 section 8 of OSHA grants the Secretary a broad power to enter and inspect 

private sector workplaces,7 whereas section 215 of the CAA states that the General Counsel may 

inspect places of employment “[u]pon written request of any employing office or covered 

employee.”8 The General Counsel shall also, however, inspect all covered facilities “on a regular 

basis, and at least once each Congress” to determine compliance with the substantive protections 

granted in section 215(a) of the CAA.9 

In addition, section 215(c)(2) of the CAA gives the General Counsel the authority to issue 

1 Id. 

2 See discussion of “Administrative Processes” at section 1 supra. 

3 2 U.S.C. 1341(c). 

4 2 U.S.C. 1341(c)(1). 

5 29 U.S.C. 657. 

6 No search warrant is expressly required under the Act. However, since the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Marshall v. Barlow’s Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978), OSHA has been required to 

perform consensual worksite inspections pursuant to an administrative search warrant. See 

BOKAT AND THOMPSON, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH LAW 214 (BNA Books 1988). 

7 Section 8(a) of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. 657(a). 

8 2 U.S.C. 1341(c). 

9 Section 215 (e)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1341 (e)(1) 

- 50 -
citations for violations of OSHA in the same manner as the Secretary of Labor under sections 9 

and 10 of OSHA.1 Under section 10 an employer has fifteen working days from the issuance of a 

citation to notify the Secretary that he/she wishes to contest the citation.2 That right is not 

provided to employing offices under section 215 the CAA. 

Record Keeping and Report Obligations 

Section 668(a)(5) of title 29 requires agency heads, including the head of GAO, to submit annual 

reports to the Secretary on occupational accidents and injuries and on the agency programs 

established under section 668. Section 7902(e) of title 5 imposes similar record keeping and 

report requirements on each agency. However, there is no apparent mechanism for enforcement 

of these sections against federal agencies. 

Section 215 of the CAA, and the proposed requirements thereunder, do not require employing 

offices to comply with these general safety and health record keeping requirements.3 However, 

certain record keeping requirements that are part of the substantive safety and health standards 

under 29 C.F.R. parts 1910 and 1926, such as employee exposure records, are required.4 The 

Board has not addressed whether section 215 of the CAA, and the regulations the Board 

proposes to implement thereunder can be harmonized with the preexisting statutory requirements 

otherwise applicable to GAO, but not within the scope of the CAA, that might independently 

apply to GAO.5 

Judicial 

Under present law, no judicial remedies are available to GAO employees, nor would the CAA 

provide GAO employees with a judicial remedy. However, the General Counsel or an employing 

office aggrieved by a final decision of the Board following a hearing or variance proceeding, may 

file a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant 

1 29 U.S.C. 658, 659. 

2 29 U.S.C. 659(a). 

3 See Notice of Proposed Rule Making Implementing section 215 of the CAA, 142 Cong. Rec. 

S11021. 

4 See id. 

5 See 142 Cong. Rec. S11021, 11022 (citing Notice of Adoption of Regulations and 

Submission for Approval and Issuance of Interim Regulations under section 203 of the CAA), 

142 Cong. Rec. S224 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 1996) (declining to address issue of harmonizing 

regulations regarding overtime exemption for law enforcement officers under section 203 with 

preexisting statutory overtime exemption for Capitol Police under 40 U.S.C. 206b-206c). 

- 51 -
to section 407 of the CAA.1 

Office of Compliance Inspection 

The General Counsel of the Office of Compliance conducted inspections of the main headquarters 

building of GAO on February 27 and 29, 1996. Based upon the inspection tours the General 

Counsel made the following finding: “The GAO has an active and effective safety and health 

program staffed with knowledgeable personnel. The few deficiencies noted were generally minor 

in nature and corrective actions were initiated almost immediately.”2 

1 2 U.S.C. 1341(c)(5). 

2 See “Report on Initial Inspections of Facilities for Compliance with Occupational Safety and 

Health Standards Under Section 215,” June 28, 1996, at III-54 (Office of Compliance 

publication). 

- 52 -
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 

(Chapter 71, Title 5, U.S.C.) 

Substantive Rights 

Under the GAOPA, as part of its personnel management system, the Comptroller General is 

authorized to adopt procedures that ensure the right of employees either to form, join, or assist 

an employee organization, or to refrain from such activity, and to adopt a labor-management 

relations program that is “consistent” with the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations 

Statute, chapter 71 of title 5 U.S.C. (Chapter 71).1 

Regulations 

GAO order 2711.1 and the GAO Operations Manual set forth detailed provisions of its labormanagement relations program, which are modeled after the provisions of Chapter 71. The 

General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) promulgated regulations 

establishing its special procedures rules for conducting representation proceedings, and for the 

consideration of unfair labor practices.2 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The PAB is vested with authority to consider cases arising from representation matters and 

from other matters that are “appealable to the Board under the labor-management relations 

program” of the Comptroller General, including unfair labor practices.3 The PAB’s powers 

and duties include: 

C determining appropriate units for labor organization representation; 

C supervising or conducting elections to determine whether a labor organization 

has been selected as exclusive representative; 

1 31 U.S.C. 732(e). Chapter 71 generally ensures that federal employees in the executive branch 

have the right to choose freely and without reprisal whether to organize and to be represented 

by an exclusive representative for purposes of bargaining over terms and conditions of 

employment. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is the independent agency 

responsible for enforcing Chapter 71. Chapter 71 expressly excludes GAO from coverage. 

2 4 C.F.R. 28.110-28.124. Given the exclusion of the GAO from the provisions of Chapter 71, 

the implementing regulations promulgated by the FLRA do not apply. 

3 31 U.S.C. 753(a)(4)-(6). 

- 53 -
C certifying labor organizations as exclusive representative; 

C resolving certain issues regarding the duty to bargain in good faith; 

C conducting hearings and resolving complaints of unfair labor practices and 

standards of conduct for labor organizations; 

C resolving exceptions to arbitrators’ awards; and 

C “tak[ing] such other actions as are necessary and appropriate to effectively 

administer the provisions of [GAO Order 2711.1].” 

Resolution of Negotiating Impasses. GAO Order 2711.1 provides for the establishment of a 

seven-member “ad hoc joint management-union committee,” to be chaired by the PAB Chair 

or the Chair’s designee, to assist in resolving impasses. If the committee determines that the 

process of collective bargaining has been exhausted, the chair conducts binding arbitration of 

the dispute. 

Grievance Procedures and Arbitration. GAO Order 2711.1 provides that any collective 

bargaining agreement shall provide procedures for settlement of grievances, and that 

grievances not satisfactorily settled shall be subject to binding arbitration. 

Judicial 

Judicial review to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available for decisions made 

under the PAB’s authority to hear cases arising from “a matter appealable to the Board under 

the labor-management relations program under section 732(e)(2) of this title, including a labor 

practice prohibited [under the GAOPA].”1 Under this scheme, direct judicial review of 

representation issues, such as the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and conduct of the 

election, is not immediately available. 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

In so far as the CAA applies the rights, protections, and responsibilities of chapter 71 to 

employing offices of the legislative branch, a comparison of GAO’s current labor-management 

relations law with what would be available under the CAA yields some noteworthy differences: 

C Definition of “employee”. In order to be a covered “employee” under GAO Order 2711.l, 

1 31 U.S.C. 753(a)(6), 755. 

- 54 -
an individual must hold either a full-time or a part-time appointment that confers 

competitive status under 31 U.S.C. §732(g).1 In contrast, under the CAA, the definition 

of covered employee contains no such qualification. With respect to exclusions, there is 

likewise a difference. Under GAO Order 2711.l, an individual “appointed as a temporary 

or intermittent expert or consultant” is expressly excluded.2 There is no comparable 

provision under the CAA. 

C Definition of “professional employee”. While the GAO Order incorporates the definition 

of “professional employee” that is found in chapter 71, and is applied by the CAA, the 

order also adds as an alternative definition an “employee engaged in the performance of 

audit or evaluator work.”3 The CAA contains no corresponding alternative definition. 

Thus, under the CAA, the fact that an employee is engaged in the performance of audit 

and evaluator work by itself would not suffice to classify the individual as a “professional 

employee.” 

C Definition of “conditions of employment”. For purposes of negotiating conditions of 

employment, the GAO Order excludes as a bargaining subject any matter “relating to the 

pay and number of work hours of GAO employees.”4 The CAA contains no explicit 

exclusion for matters relating to pay or number of work hours. To the extent that any 

such matters would be excluded as bargaining subjects, they would have to satisfy the 

exclusion for matters that are specifically provided for by federal statute. 

C Definition of “grievance” and grievance procedures. For purposes of resolving grievances 

under the GAO Order, the definition of “grievance” is limited to “any complaint 

concerning the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement.”5 In 

addition, the GAO Order expressly excludes from a negotiated grievance procedure that is 

established under a collective bargaining agreement certain subjects, including 

discrimination claims based on race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, political 

affiliation, marital status, or disability.6 Also, the negotiated grievance procedure may not 

be used when grievances over reductions in grade and removals because of unacceptable 

1 Section 4.d.(1)(a) & (b). 

2 Section 4.d.(2)(b). 

3 Section 4.h.(1). 

4 Section 4.n.(3). 

5 Section 4.o. 

6 Section 17.d. 

- 55 -
performance are involved.1 In contrast, as applied under the CAA, by definition, 

“grievance” includes: any complaint by any employee or labor organization concerning 

any matter relating to the employment of any employee; or any complaint by any labor 

organization or employing agency concerning the effect, interpretation, or alleged breach 

of a collective bargaining agreement, or concerning any alleged violation, 

misinterpretation, or misapplication of any law, rule, or regulation affecting employment 

conditions. 

C Minimum voting threshold for obtaining exclusive recognition. Under the GAO Order, 

the GAO will accord exclusive recognition to a labor organization that receives the vote of 

a majority of unit employees voting in a secret ballot election, with the proviso that the 

labor organization must receive the votes of at least 30 percent of employees in the unit.2 

There is no such 30 percent minimum under the CAA. 

C Scope of appropriate bargaining units. In addition to setting forth a general standard for 

determining appropriate bargaining units, drawn from Chapter 71, the GAO Order 

declares in three instances what is the appropriate unit scope: (1) for regional offices and 

suboffices, the appropriate unit consists of a nationwide unit of all professional or 

nonprofessional employees; (2) for headquarters, the appropriate unit consists of a 

headquarters-wide unit of all professional, nonprofessional, or craft employees (including 

all audit sites in the Washington, D.C. area); and (3) for overseas offices, the appropriate 

unit consists of a unit which includes all professional or nonprofessional employees.3 The 

CAA and regulations adopted by the Board (based on regulations of the FLRA for the 

executive branch) do not include comparable provisions that predetermine the appropriate 

unit scope for such offices. 

C Consultation rights. The GAO Order contains no provision for affording an exclusive 

representative either national consultation rights with respect to substantive changes in 

conditions of employment, or government-wide rule or regulation consultation rights with 

respect to rules or regulations that substantively change conditions of employment.4 

Under the CAA, such rights would be afforded to exclusive representatives. 

C Procedure for authorizing dues allotments to representatives. The GAO Order does not 

incorporate from chapter 71, the procedure by which a labor organization with a 10 

percent showing of interest may petition for authorization to negotiate with an employing 

1 Section 17.e.

2 Section 8.a.

3 Section 9.a.(1), (2), (3). 

4 Compare 5 U.S.C. 7113, 7117. 

- 56 -
agency over a dues deduction procedure covering members in the labor organization.1 

The CAA, in applying the rights and protections of chapter 71, would provide for such a 

procedure. 

The CAA applies provisions of Chapter 71, rather than the provisions of the National Labor 

Relations Act (NLRA),2 which is applicable to private employers, and is administered by the 

National Labor Relations Board. There are fundamental differences between Chapter 71 and the 

NLRA, most notably in the areas of union recognition, the right to strike and the use of other 

economic weapons, the availability of union security, and the manner in which negotiations over 

terms and conditions of employment are conducted and impasses are resolved. In the federal 

sector, recognition of a union as exclusive representative may be effectuated only after a 

representation election; strikes are proscribed; a labor organization may not enter into a union 

security agreement with an employing agency; an employing agency in certain instances may be 

required to submit to impasse procedures that can result in the imposition of employment terms. 

In the private sector, as an alternative to a representation election, an employer is permitted to 

voluntarily recognize a union upon a showing of majority support; employees have, with 

limitations, the right to strike and to use other economic weapons; a union, with limitations, may 

negotiate a union security agreement with an employer; and, an employer after impasse cannot be 

ordered to agree to employment terms. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The PAB, an internal office of the GAO, administers the labor management relations program. 

The PAB decides legal issues in connection with representation matters and in unfair labor 

practices. The PAB General Counsel has certain responsibilities in investigating representation 

matters and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases before an agency hearing officer and before 

the PAB. In certain cases, however, before an employee can file an unfair labor practice charge 

with the General Counsel, the employee must seek an informal resolution of the matter with the 

charged party. Where the PAB General Counsel does not believe that the charge is reasonably 

well-founded, the charging party may nevertheless pursue the claim individually. 

Under the CAA, the Board of Directors exercises the authority to conduct representation cases 

and to decide unfair labor practice cases. Legal questions on such matters as the appropriateness 

of the bargaining unit, exclusions, and whether representation elections were conducted free of 

objectionable conduct, are decided by the Board. The General Counsel of the Office of 

Compliance exercises the authority to investigate and prosecute unfair labor practice allegations 

before a hearing officer, who issues a written decision within 90 days determining whether the 

1 Compare section 11 with 5 U.S.C. 7115(c). 

2 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. 

- 57 -
allegations have merit and if so, what remedies are appropriate. Hearing officer decisions may be 

appealed to the Board of Directors. Unlike the GAO scheme, if the General Counsel determines 

that an unfair labor practice charge is not meritorious, the General Counsel dismisses the charge, 

for which there is no right of review; the charging party may not pursue his or her claim 

individually. 

Many similarities exist between the administrative processes for handling labor-management 

relations matters under the GAOPA and those under the CAA, both being patterned after the 

processes established under chapter 71 of title 5, U.S.C. Coverage under the CAA, however, 

would afford GAO employees the ability to pursue their rights with an enforcement office whose 

adjudicatory body and prosecuting officer are completely separate and independent of the 

employing office. Under the CAA, a GAO employee would not have the right individually to 

pursue an unfair labor practice claim that the Office of Compliance’s General Counsel has found 

nonmeritorious. 

Judicial 

With the one significant exception, the rights of judicial review under the GAO and the CAA 

schemes are similar. The GAOPA provides that any person, including employees aggrieved by a 

final decision of the PAB, may seek judicial review in the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit. Under the CAA, only the General Counsel or a respondent to an unfair labor practice 

complaint, if aggrieved by a final decision of the Board of Directors, may file a petition for judicial 

review in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Thus, were GAO employees 

covered under the CAA, their right of judicial review would be more circumscribed. For example, 

the Board may dismiss a claim prosecuted by the General Counsel, based on a charge filed by an 

employee, if the General Counsel elects not to seek review in the court of appeals. In such a case, 

the charging party would have no standing to appeal the matter. 

Process for Issuing Substantive Regulations 

GAOPA authorizes the Comptroller General, who is the head of the employing office, to establish 

substantive rights and protections regarding labor-management relations. The CAA provides that 

substantive regulations implementing the labor-management provisions be adopted by the 

independent Office of Compliance Board of Directors (Board), subject to approval or disapproval 

by the House and Senate. 

Furthermore, the statutory standard governing the rulemaking by the Comptroller General is that 

the labor-management relations program for GAO be “consistent” with Chapter 71. By 

comparison, the CAA makes the rights, protections, and responsibilities established under 

specified sections of Chapter 71 applicable, and the Board is directed to issue implementing 

regulations that must be “the same as” FLRA regulations, except to the extent the Board 

determines that a modification is required by virtue of specified statutory criteria (involving more 

effective implementation of rights and protections, a conflict of interest, or Congress’ 

constitutional responsibilities). 

- 58 -
WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION ACT 

(WARN) 

Substantive Rights 

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), which assures employees in 

the private sector of notice in advance of office or plant closings or mass layoffs, does not apply 

to GAO. However, effective one year after this study is transmitted to Congress, the CAA 

provisions that apply WARN rights and protections to congressional offices and employees will 

be extended to cover GAO and its employees as well. 

Until recently, GAO was subject to the provisions of generally applicable civil service law and 

OPM regulations regarding “Retention Preference,” which requires that 60 days’ advance notice 

be given to employees affected by a RIF.1 However, in November 1995, as part of the FY96 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Congress added a new section to the GAOPA directing 

the Comptroller General to “prescribe regulations . . . [for RIFs] which give due effect to tenure 

of employment, military preference, performance and/or contributions to the agency’s goals and 

objectives, and length of service,” but notwithstanding the generally applicable civil service 

requirements regarding Retention Preference.2 The new legislation does not include a guarantee 

that GAO employees be granted notice in advance of a RIF, although GAO-issued Order 2351.1, 

on Reduction in Force, which implements the 1995 legislation (RIF Order), establishes 

standards and procedures for conducting a RIF at GAO, including a requirement to notify 

affected employees similar in most respects to the notice requirement under civil service law 

and regulations that had previously applied to GAO. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The various administrative complaint processes established under the GAOPA are available in 

a case where a GAO employee is affected by a RIF, including where notice requirements were 

not met. Thus, any employee who has been furloughed for more than 30 days, separated, or 

demoted may file an appeal with the PAB. GAO management has explained that, if notice has 

been defective, the PAB can order back pay and direct that the employee be reinstated until the 

notice defect is corrected. 

1 5 C.F.R. 351.801 - 351.807 

2 31 U.S.C. 732(h), as added by section 213 of Pub. L. No. 104-53, 109 Stat. 536 (Nov. 19, 

1995). 

- 59 -
Judicial 

The GAOPA does not provide the right to file a civil action in case of violation of the rights 

under the RIF Order. Final decisions of the PAB are appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

When the WARN Act provisions of the CAA go into effect at GAO, one year after this study 

is transmitted to Congress, a GAO employee who claims a violation of these provisions under 

the CAA may elect to file a civil action, request a jury trial, and receive the remedies afforded 

under the WARN Act provisions of the CAA, which are back pay and benefits for each day of 

violation, up to 60 days. If the GAO employee elects to have an adjudicatory hearing under 

the CAA, and if the case is decided on appeal by the Office of Compliance Board, the CAA 

provides the right of judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

Unlike the GAOPA, which requires certain protections regarding RIFs, but does not specify 

that advance notice be among the protections, the CAA affords a statutory guarantee of 

advance notice in the case of an office or plant closing or mass layoff. However, the 

Comptroller General has provided for advance notice in the GAO RIF Order, and, in most 

respects, the GAO Order provides employees substantive rights to notice that are as extensive 

as, or more extensive than, the rights afforded under WARN provisions made applicable by 

the CAA: 

The CAA guarantees notice only in the case of an “office closing” or “mass layoff.”1 

As defined in applicable statutes and regulations, these terms involve an employment 

loss during a 30-day period to a significant number of employees at an employment 

site.2 Under the GAO RIF Order, there is no minimum number of employees who 

must be affected to trigger notice requirements. If a single employee is separated, 

demoted, reassigned, or furloughed for more than 30 days, and if the cause is a lack of 

work, a shortage of funds, reorganization, or certain similar reasons, the action is a 

1 See section 205(a)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1315(a)(1); regulations of the Board 

implementing section 205. 

2 29 U.S.C. 2102; 20 C.F.R. 639 et. seq. 

- 60 -

C 
RIF, and notice must be given.1 

C Both the CAA and the GAO RIF Order ordinarily require 60 days’ advance notice. 

Both also provide for a shortened notice period in the case of unforeseeable 

circumstances, but the GAO Order, unlike the CAA, establishes a minimum notice 

period of 30 days under any circumstances.2 

In at least one respect, however, the substantive notice requirements in the CAA provide 

greater employee protection. In the case of an office closing or mass layoff, when not all 

employees are to be laid off on the same date, the CAA requires that notice regarding all 

affected employees be given 60 days before the date on which the first individual is laid off.3 

The GAO Order contains no such provision. 

GAO management has recommended that WARN should not be made applicable to GAO, 

because GAO’s RIF Order provides employees more extensive rights than WARN. The 

comment explained that the 60-day notice requirement in the Order is only one of many 

procedures designed to protect GAO employees who could be affected by a RIF, and that, 

even as to the limited issue of the notice requirement, which is the only protection offered by 

WARN, GAO’s RIF Order provides employees more extensive rights than are available under 

WARN. 

Moreover, the notice requirement is only one component of an “integrated system,” which 

also guarantees that seniority, performance, and veterans’ preference will be taken into account 

in any RIF decisions, and also provides that employees will be permitted to inspect relevant 

records on which a RIF decision will be based. An employee advisory council commented 

that the GAO RIF Order provides less protection to employees than the civil service law and 

regulations that formerly applied at GAO. However, except for the notice requirements of 

WARN Act, the CAA does not govern conduct of a RIF at all. 

1 GAO Order 2351.1, Chap. 1(6) (February 28, 1996). 

2 Id., Chap. 5(1). 

3 See Office of Compliance Board regulations implementing the WARN Act, section 

639.5(a)(1). 

- 61 -
Procedures 

Administrative 

Under the GAOPA, only administrative processes would be available in a case where a GAO 

employee is affected by a RIF, including where notice requirements were not met. The 

GAOPA does not does not provide the right to file a civil action in case of violation of the 

rights under the RIF Order. 

Judicial 

In contrast, an employee covered by WARN provisions of the CAA who alleges a violation 

may elect to file a civil action. As a jury trial should be available to private sector 

employees,1 a covered employee should be able to request a jury trial under the CAA as well. 

As noted in comments, the GAOPA provisions on RIFs afford particularly broad discretion to 

the Comptroller General in establishing substantive rights. In fact, the statute makes no 

mention of any requirement that advance notice be given in case of a RIF. 

The GAO employee Advisory Council on Civil Rights criticized the provisions added to 

GAOPA by the FY96 appropriations legislation, which “gave management wide latitude to 

draw RIF rules,” as well as GAO’s RIF Order issued pursuant to those provisions. According 

to the comment, “GAO’s use of narrowly drawn competitive areas targeted people on a 

discriminatory basis,” and permitting managers in each unit to decide how to make cuts 

resulted in the targeted RIFing of African-Americans and people who filed complaints on 

various grounds. 

1 See Bentley v. Arlee Home Fashions, Inc., 861 F.Supp. 65 (E.D. Ark. 1994). 

- 62 -
UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND 

REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT OF 1994 

(USERRA) 

Substantive Rights 

Under the USERRA, all employees of the federal government, including employees of GAO 

performing service in the uniformed services, are protected from discrimination on the basis of 

such service, denial of reemployment rights, and denial of employment benefits. Like other 

federal employers, if it is “impossible or unreasonable” for GAO to reemploy a person 

otherwise entitled to reemployment, OPM shall ensure that the person is offered alternative 

employment of like seniority, status, and pay at a federal executive agency.1 

The USERRA directs OPM to prescribe regulations implementing the provisions of the 

USERRA with regard to “executive agencies” as that term is defined in section 105 of title 5 

of the U.S. Code, and GAO comes within the statutory definition of an “executive agency.”2 

OPM’s regulations spell out specific employee rights and protections under the USERRA in 

the civil service context.3 For example, the regulations specify that an employee absent 

because of service in the uniformed services “is to be carried on leave without pay unless the 

employee elects to use other leave or freely and knowingly provides written notice of intent 

not to return to a position of employment with the agency.”4 Upon reemployment, the 

employee “is generally entitled to be treated as though he or she has never left,” receives 

credit for the entire period of absence for purposes of seniority and length of service, and is 

protected against discharge (except for cause) for a period after reemployment.5 

On January 24, 1992, GAO issued Order 2353.1, which includes a description of GAO 

employees’ right to return to employment after military duty. However, this Order was issued 

prior to the enactment of the USERRA in 1994, and is not consistent with it. 

1 See 38 U.S.C. 4314(a), (b), (c). 

2 38 U.S.C. 4303(5), 4331(b)(1). The inclusion of GAO within the definition of “executive 

agency” is explained earlier in this study. 

3 5 C.F.R. part 353. 

4 5 C.F.R. 353.106, 353.208. 

5 5 C.F.R. 353.107, 353.209. 

- 63 -
Procedures 

Administrative 

The USERRA establishes several administrative processes to assure that rights and protections 

under the Act are provided to Federal Government employees, including those at GAO: 

C Placement by OPM. When a legislative branch employer determines that it is 

impossible or unreasonable to reemploy an employee after service in a 

uniformed service, OPM will offer placement of the employee in the executive 

branch.1 GAO employees and former employees might apply to OPM for this 

placement. 

C Investigation and informal compliance efforts by Labor Department. An 

employee of an “executive agency,” including GAO, who claims that the 

employer or OPM has failed or refused, or is about to fail or refuse, to comply 

with USERRA may file a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service (VETS).2 The VETS staff will make 

reasonable efforts to ensure compliance, and will attempt to informally resolve 

the employment dispute brought to them. 

C Representation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). If the Labor 

Department is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the employee may request 

that the complaint be referred to the OSC. If the Special Counsel is reasonably 

satisfied that the employee is entitled to the rights or benefits sought, the Special 

Counsel may, upon the employee’s request, appear on behalf of the employee 

and initiate an action before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).3 

C Adjudication of the complaint before the Merit Systems Protection Board. 

The employee may have the claim adjudicated before the MSPB. If the 

employee chooses not to be represented by the Special Counsel, or if the Special 

Counsel declines to represent the employee, the employee may submit the claim 

directly to the MSPB. The MSPB will adjudicate the complaint and may order 

the GAO to comply with the provision of the USERRA and to compensate the 

1 See 38 U.S.C. 4314; 5 C.F.R. 353.110. 

2 See 38 U.S.C. 4322; 5 C.F.R. 353.210. 

3 38 U.S.C. 4324(a). 

- 64 -
employee for any loss of wages or benefits.1 

A GAO employee who alleges a deprivation of USERRA rights and benefits may also submit a 

complaint under the administrative processes established under the GAOPA. For example, a 

GAO employee who suffers an appealable adverse action could bring a complaint before the 

PAB and allege that the action was taken in violation of USERRA. 

Judicial 

Although the USERRA makes provision for employees of private employers or state 

governments to file a civil action against the employer, this right is not made available to 

employees of the federal government.2 The USERRA does provide for judicial review of a 

final order or decision of the MSPB, by petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit.3 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

GAO and its employees are covered under the CAA provisions that apply the rights and 

protections of the USERRA, effective as of one year after this study is transmitted to 

Congress.4 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

GAO is subject to the substantive provisions of the USERRA, which only apply throughout the 

federal government and are also made applicable under the CAA. 

1 38 U.S.C. 4324(b)-(c).

2 See 38 U.S.C. 4323.

3 38 U.S.C. 4324(d).

4 Section 204(d)(2) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1314(d)(2).

- 65 -
Procedures 

Administrative 

Under present law, the USERRA provides a multi-step administrative process, including an 

investigation and informal efforts to resolve the dispute by the Labor Department, 

administrative adjudication before the MSPB, and the opportunity to be represented by the 

Special Counsel. The CAA provides counseling, mediation, and the option of an adjudicatory 

hearing and appeal. However, there is no provision for investigation of USERRA claims 

under the CAA. 

One year after this study is transmitted to Congress, GAO and its employees will be treated as an 

employing office, and as covered employees, for purposes of section 206 of the CAA, which 

applies substantive rights and protections of the USERRA and specifies remedies that may be 

awarded in case of a violation.1 GAO and its employees also will then become subject to the 

provisions of the CAA that establish administrative and judicial dispute-resolution procedures, and 

that forbid retaliation.2 

Judicial 

Unlike the CAA, which entitles covered legislative branch employees to file a civil action, 

USERRA does not entitle federal government employees alleging a violation of USERRA 

rights and protections to file a civil action. The CAA also provides that covered employees 

may obtain the same relief in district court as employees in the private sector. This available 

relief includes: requiring that the employer comply with applicable USERRA requirements; 

compensation for any loss of wages and benefits; liquidated damages equal to the lost wages and 

benefits, in situations where failure to comply was willful; and other remedies under the court’s 

“full equity powers,” including injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and contempt orders. 

Furthermore, assuming that GAO becomes subject to the judicial procedures of the CAA, GAO 

employees will gain the right to sue in district court for USERRA violations. 

The USERRA provision forbidding retaliation is not listed among the provisions made 

applicable to covered legislative branch employees by the CAA.3 However, the CAA contains 

its own provision forbidding retaliation, so GAO employees’ right to file a civil action should 

extend to claims of retaliation. 

1 See sections 206(a)(2)(B)-(C), (d)(2) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1316(a)(2)(B)-(C), (d)(2). 

2 Sections 207 and 401-416 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1317, 1401-1416. 

3 Section 206(a)(1)(A) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1316(a)(1)(A). 

- 66 -
EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT 

(EPPA) 

Substantive Rights 

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) does not apply to GAO or its 

employees, nor does this legislation apply to any federal agencies or employees, except as made 

applicable by the CAA. EPPA restricts employers’ use of lie detector tests of their employees. 

Comments 

GAO management has stated that GAO has never utilized polygraphs. As discussed above in the 

discussion of the GAOPA, the PAB has suggested that consideration be given to assigning to the 

PAB responsibility for enforcing the EPPA with respect to GAO. The Mid-Level Employees 

Council recommended that the law be amended to clearly designate the PAB as the arbiter of 

employee complaints dealing with EPPA matters. 

EVALUATION 

Under presently effective law and regulations, no rights and protections under EPPA are 

applicable to GAO and its employees. The EPPA does not apply to the federal sector. 

Effective one year after this study is transmitted to Congress, however, the CAA will apply EPPA 

rights and protections to GAO and its employees under the same statutory provisions as now 

apply under the CAA at congressional employing offices. 

- 67 -
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 

(Public Access Provisions) 

Substantive Rights 

Section 509 of the ADA provides that the rights and protections under the entire ADA shall 

apply to certain congressional instrumentalities, including GAO.1 Titles II and III of the 

ADA, which relate to public access to public services and public accommodations, are 

therefore applicable in their entirety.2 

Title II generally guarantees that a qualified person with a disability shall not “be excluded 

from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a 

public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”3 Title III, which applies 

to the private sector, generally prohibits discrimination against an individual “on the basis of 

disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation,”4 and requires places 

of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in 

compliance with accessibility standards.5 

Regulations 

Under ADA titles II and III, the Attorney General has promulgated implementing regulations 

for matters other than public transportation,6 and the Secretary of Transportation has 

promulgated regulations for public transportation matters.7 According to GAO, these 

regulations do not apply to GAO. 

1 42 U.S.C. 12209(1). 

2 Sections 201-245, 301-309 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12131-12165, 12181-12189. Title II of 

the ADA has also been interpreted to apply to employment by a public entity, as well as public 

access. Insofar as title II applies to employment, it is covered by the earlier discussion of the 

application at GAO of the EEO provisions of the ADA. 

3 42 U.S.C. 12132. 

4 42 U.S.C 12182. 

5 42 U.S.C. 12183. 

6 See 42 U.S.C. 12134, 12186(b); 28 C.F.R. part 36. 

7 See 42 U.S.C. 12143, 12149, 12164, 12186; 49 C.F.R. part 37. 

- 69 -
Procedures 

Administrative 

Section 509(2) of the ADA authorizes instrumentalities, including GAO, to “establish 

remedies and procedures to be utilized with respect to the rights and protections” of the ADA 

made applicable to GAO.1 GAO has stated that it is considering various appeal options for 

visitors, guests, or patrons at GAO buildings who have ADA complaints, and GAO has 

circulated a draft Order 2713.4 on discrimination complaint processing. 

Under the draft Order, the individual must file a written complaint with GAO’s Civil Rights 

Office (CRO) within 45 days of the incident or occurrence. CRO will attempt to mediate the 

matter. If mediation fails, CRO will issue a written decision. If the complainant is not 

satisfied with the final decision of CRO, he or she may appeal to the Office of the Assistant 

Comptroller General for Operations, which will review the matter and issue a final decision. 

No provision is made for an administrative hearing. 

Judicial 

The ADA public access provisions now in effect do not provide judicial processes in case of a 

complaint against GAO. 

Future-Effective Provision Under the CAA 

The CAA added a new paragraph (6) to section 509 of the ADA providing that the “remedies 

and procedures set forth in” section 717 of title VII shall be available to “any qualified person 

with a disability” who is a “visitor, guest, or patron” of an instrumentality of Congress, 

including GAO.2 However, the provision specifies that the authorities of the EEOC under 

section 717 shall be exercised by the chief official of the instrumentality, who, in the case of 

GAO, is the Comptroller General. This new paragraph (6) is to become effective one year 

after this study is transmitted to Congress. 

Administrative processes. Section 717 provides that the complainant shall be notified of the 

final action taken by the agency on any complaint of discrimination, and that the EEOC shall 

enforce through appropriate remedies and shall take appeals from the decision of the agency. 

ADA section 509(6) will require that these functions be the responsibility of the Comptroller 

General. 

1 42 U.S.C. 12209(2). 

2 Sec. 210 (g) of CAA. 

- 70 -
Judicial processes. Section 717, which is made applicable by ADA section 509(6), also 

provides that the complainant may file a civil action in district court. The complainant may 

request a trial de novo by filing suit after receipt of final action taken by an agency, or if 180 

days have passed since filing the complaint without the agency having rendered a final 

decision. 

Relief. In case of a violation, section 717 authorizes the following relief: “the court may 

enjoin . . . unlawful employment practices and order such affirmative action as may be 

appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, 

with or without back pay . . . , or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.”1 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

All of the rights and protections of the ADA are made applicable to GAO by section 509. 

Accordingly, the provisions of the ADA regarding public access applicable to GAO are the 

same as those applicable to state and local governments and the private sector. Although all of 

the provisions of title II of the ADA were applied by the CAA, only certain provisions of 

title III were applied: 42 U.S.C. 12182 (prohibition of discrimination by public 

accommodations); 42 U.S.C 12183 (new construction and alteration in public accommodations 

and commercial facilities); 42 U.S.C 12189 (examinations and courses). 

According to GAO, the substantive regulations promulgated by the Attorney General and the 

Secretary of Transportation implementing titles II and III of the ADA do not apply to GAO. 

By contrast, these regulations apply to state and local governments and the private sector under 

the ADA, and regulations [that are substantially the same] have been [adopted] by the Office 

of Compliance Board for congressional offices subject to the CAA.2 

1 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g), which is referenced in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(d). 

2 Even in the executive branch, the Attorney General is responsible, under Executive Order No. 

12250, for reviewing agency regulations under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 

U.S.C. 794(a), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in conducting programs 

and activities, and for otherwise coordinating the implementation and enforcement of this 

provision. E.O. 12250, 45 Fed. Reg. 72995 (1980), reproduced as a note under 42 U.S.C. 

2000d-1. 

- 71 -
Procedures 

Administrative and Enforcement 

The administrative processes required at GAO by section 509(6) of the ADA differ from those 

under the CAA. Section 509(6) will require a process comparable to that used for EEO 

complaints, under which the complaining party initiates the proceeding and pursues the 

complaint. The legislation does not require an administrative hearing, and GAO’s draft order 

does not provide for one. 

The CAA adopts an enforcement-based process, under which the complaining individual files a 

charge with the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance, who investigates and decides 

whether he believes a violation may have occurred.1 If so, the General Counsel may request 

mediation, and, if necessary, may file a complaint. The complaint is submitted to a hearing 

officer for an adjudicatory hearing, subject to appeal to the Office of Compliance Board. The 

charging party, while not entitled to file a complaint, may intervene as a party if the General 

Counsel does so. 

The administrative process at GAO is similar to that in the executive branch under section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the 

programs and activities of federal agencies. The statute does not specify what procedures shall 

be applied, but many agencies have established an administrative process under which the 

agency investigates complaints, responds in writing, and provides an appeal within the 

agency.2 

Judicial 

In entitling individuals to sue GAO for violations of the public access provisions of the ADA, 

section 509(6) differs from the CAA. A final decision of the Office of Compliance Board is 

subject to review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but a complaint 

alleging that an office under the CAA violated the public access provisions may not be brought 

as a civil action in district court.3 In this respect, the law for GAO will be similar to that for 

state and local governments and the private sector and for the executive branch, where 

violation of public access provisions of the ADA may be vindicated in district court. 

The prohibition against retaliation under section 503 the ADA applies to individuals seeking 

public access to GAO, but an individual who claims such retaliation will not be entitled to a 

1 2 U.S.C 1331 (d). 

2 See 29 U.S.C. 794(a); 53 Fed. Reg. 25872 (1988) (promulgating regulations for 13 different 

agencies, based on a prototype prepared by the Department of Justice, e.g., OPM regulations 

codified at 5 C.F.R. part 723). 

3 2 U.S.C. 1410. 

- 72 -
judicial remedy. Section 503 is not included among the ADA sections referenced in section 

509(6) of the ADA, which makes the “remedies and procedures” of section 717 available at 

GAO. In comparison, the CAA does not prohibit retaliation against individuals who assert 

rights under the ADA public access provisions. The CAA does not make section 503 of the 

ADA applicable, and section 207 of the CAA, which forbids retaliation against covered 

employees, does not apply to individuals who use public services and accommodations who are 

not covered employees.1 

Relief 

The law at GAO would apply the remedies of section 717 of title VII in cases under title II and 

title III of the ADA. Section 717 provides relief tailored to EEO situations, including back 

pay. This differs from the CAA, which makes available the same relief as is available under 

the ADA in cases involving state or local governments or the private sector. 

Section 203 of the ADA provides that, in case of a violation of title II, relief may be available 

either under section 717 or under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI does not specify 

what relief is available, but courts have found that injunctive relief, but not back pay or other 

damages, is available.2 Section 308(a) of the ADA provides that, in the case of a violation of 

title III, either the remedies under title II (which forbids discrimination by public 

accommodations) or injunctive relief to alter facilities will be available.3 Under title II of the 

Civil Rights Act, “preventive relief,” including injunction, is available, but courts have found 

that damages are not available.4 

1 2 U.S.C. 1317. 

2 See, e.g., Drayden v. Needville Independent School Dist., 642 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1981). 

3 42 U.S.C. 12188(a). 

4 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a); see, e.g., Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 

(1968); Bray v. RHT, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 3, 5 (D.D.C. 1990). 

- 73 -
CONCLUSIONS 

Substantive Rights 

GAO employees are currently granted substantive rights under most CAA laws, and, one year 

after this study is transmitted to Congress, the CAA will extend the substantive rights under 

additional laws to fill most remaining gaps in coverage. In addition, GAO employees enjoy many 

of the substantive civil service protections that apply generally in the executive branch. 

Consequently, employees at the instrumentality have certain rights and protections beyond those 

afforded legislative branch employees covered by the CAA. No employee comment endorsed the 

idea of transferring GAO from civil-service-based coverage to CAA coverage, and some 

employees suggested that it would be advisable to provide GAO employees with a statutory 

guarantee of all protections that apply in the executive branch. 

Administrative Processes 

GAO provides several avenues for administrative resolution of employee complaints and 

grievances on a wide range of subjects. However, one element of comprehensiveness and 

effectiveness is the independence of administrative procedures, and, in this respect, the picture at 

GAO is mixed. GAO employees can submit claims and appeals to the PAB in a number of areas 

— including EEO, appealable adverse actions, and prohibited personnel practices. These rights 

are in some respects broader in scope than those available under the CAA, which allows appeals 

to the Board only under the specific laws covered by the Act. The PAB’s investigatory, 

enforcement, and oversight authorities in various areas, as well as the investigatory functions of 

GAO’s Civil Rights Office, significantly exceed the investigation, enforcement, and oversight 

provided under the CAA. However, the PAB is administratively a part of GAO, and, while some 

employees commented that the PAB seems to act independently and without bias, others reported 

widespread employee dissatisfaction largely because of concerns about a lack of independence. 

One recently imposed limitation on administrative enforcement at GAO — and a subject of 

dissatisfaction expressed in employee comments — is the provision in FY96 appropriations 

legislation forbidding the PAB to stay a RIF, even if discriminatory or otherwise a prohibited 

personnel practice. Like the MSPB for the executive branch, the PAB may generally stay agency 

action that is based on a prohibited personnel practice. It should be noted that such stay authority 

is outside the scope of remedies made available to covered employees by the CAA. 

The legislative decision to establish the PAB as an office within GAO was originally intended to 

avoid subjecting GAO to the regulatory authority of the executive branch agencies that it may be 

called upon to audit. However, this decision is apparently undergoing reconsideration. GAO 

advised the Board that, because of budgetary considerations, the House Appropriations 

Committee has asked GAO to find a more appropriate placement for the functions that the PAB 

now performs, and that GAO has been considering this matter but has not come to any 

conclusions. 

- 75 -
Judicial Processes and Relief 

GAO employees either now have, or will be granted under the CAA, rights to use judicial 

procedures that are generally comparable to rights available to covered Congressional employees 

under the CAA. However, under certain applicable laws, the right to jury trial and to recover 

certain kinds of relief are not available to GAO employees. For example, GAO employees, like 

executive branch employees, arguably may not request a jury trial in cases under the ADEA, EPA, 

or FLSA, and may not recover compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. 1981 or liquidated 

damages under the ADEA. 

After the Ramey decision, GAO employees may not file a civil action in district court on a 

discrimination complaint after having appealed to the PAB. Employee comments expressed their 

dissatisfaction with this result, pointing out that executive branch employees may sue in district 

court and obtain a trial de novo even after appealing to the EEOC. However, under the CAA, 

covered employees must make a similar election, between either filing a civil action in district 

court or filing an administrative complaint with the Office of Compliance and thereby foregoing 

the right to file a civil action (although retaining the right to obtain appellate court review of final 

Board decisions). 

In addition, the court in Ramey declined to decide whether GAO employees have the option of 

bringing a civil action on a discrimination complaint even before having appealed to the PAB. 

The resulting uncertainty can be resolved only through further litigation or by enactment of 

legislation. 

Independent Process for Issuing Substantive Regulations 

For most of the laws made applicable by the CAA, the substantive rights of GAO employees are 

generally defined not by GAO management, but by applicable statutes and Government-wide 

regulations adopted by executive branch agencies, or will be defined by regulations of the Office 

of Compliance Board when they go into effect with respect to GAO. However, in one significant 

exception, GAO’s order establishing a labor-management program includes limits on appropriate 

bargaining limits and on the scope of bargaining that are more restrictive than the provisions in 

Chapter 71 or in regulations adopted by the Board under the CAA, based on FLRA regulations. 

In this respect, GAO has authority to define (and limit) employee rights that is not granted to 

employing offices under the CAA. 

Furthermore, GAO has some authority to define its employees’ rights with respect to certain 

general civil service protections outside the scope of the CAA. For example, amendments to 

GAOPA in the FY96 appropriations legislation granted the GAO wide latitude in establishing job 

retention rights in the conduct of RIFs. Certain employee comments were critical of the degree of 

latitude granted GAO in employment matters generally, especially the broad authority recently 

granted to GAO regarding RIFs. 

- 76 -
The study also identified several issues regarding GAO that warrant further discussion: 

FMLA 

GAO is now subject to the FMLA provisions in civil service law, codified in Title 5 of the U.S. 

Code, and by OPM regulations implementing those provisions. However, section 202(c) of the 

CAA transfers coverage of GAO from the civil service provisions to the private sector provisions 

of the FMLA (codified in Title 29 of the U.S. Code), effective as of one year after this study is 

transmitted to Congress.1 Section 202(c) will grant employees a private right of action that is 

unavailable for FMLA violations under civil service law, but will also reduce substantive FMLA 

protections, which are stronger under civil service law than in the private sector. 

Section 202(c) covers Library of Congress as well as GAO, and both instrumentalities 

recommended that section 202(c) be rescinded. They explained that they have already established 

their FMLA leave systems in conformity with Title 5 requirements and within the parameters of 

the general federal leave system, and a shift to Title 29 would, in their view, be administratively 

disruptive without serving a significant public purpose. 

GAO employees did not comment on this subject, but two unions of Library employees 

recommended that coverage be retained under Title 5, because Title 29 provides exemptions 

tailored to the private sector that are not appropriate to civil service employment. The unions also 

stated that the right to sue for civil damages under Title 29 would be “a rather extraordinary 

remedy when extended to federal employees,” and that “administrative remedies which are 

typically available to federal employees would appear to be a more appropriate response to” an 

FMLA violation. On the other hand, section 202(c) furthers the general principle, expressed by 

Congress in enacting the CAA, that private sector law should apply to the legislative branch. 

WARN 

Employees at GAO do not now have protection under the WARN Act, but the CAA extends 

protection one year after this study is transmitted to Congress. However, GAO recommended 

that the application of WARN Act requirements to GAO should be rescinded, because greater 

employee protection is already available under a GAO Order governing RIFs. Applying to any 

RIF, no matter how small, the Order affords substantive rights generally more comprehensive than 

those under the WARN Act. Furthermore, while relief under the WARN Act is limited to 60 

days’ back pay, under GAO’s Order the PAB may order the employee reinstated until the notice 

defect is corrected, in addition to back pay. 

However, the WARN Act provisions of the CAA establish only a minimum level of notice 

protection, and do not foreclose the retention of additional protections in GAO’s Order. 

Furthermore, the CAA provisions afford certain rights and protections not provided by GAO’s 

Order. Employees who allege a violation of the WARN Act requirements of the CAA have the 

right to file a civil action — a right that is not available in case of a violation of the GAO Order. 

1 Section 202(c) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1312(c). 

- 77 -
Furthermore, unlike the notice requirements that GAO management chose to incorporate in its 

RIF Order, the WARN Act provisions of the CAA are guaranteed in statute and cannot be 

modified or rescinded by any employing office. 

- 78 -
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

(GPO) 

OVERVIEW 

The Government Printing Office (GPO) prints, binds, and distributes the publications of the 

Congress, as well as the executive branch of the federal government. The Public Printer, who 

serves as head of the agency, is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the 

Senate. 

Although GPO is a part of the legislative branch, most GPO employees are included in the federal 

competitive service, and employment laws that apply generally in the executive branch apply at 

GPO. These rights and protections are somewhat similar to those afforded GAO employees 

except that, unlike GAO, which has its own personnel management system, including the 

Personnel Appeals Board, GPO is subject to direct regulation by the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal 

Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), and other executive branch agencies that regulate executive 

branch employment. 

The federal sector laws and procedures applicable at GPO provide a multiplicity of avenues for 

administrative consideration of employee complaints. All GPO employees can appeal 

discrimination complaints to the EEOC, and can apply to the FLRA in case of labor-management 

disputes. Furthermore, certain kinds of employment actions taken by GPO are subject to appeal 

to the MSPB, including appealable adverse actions (removals, suspensions for more than 14 days, 

reductions in grade or pay, or furloughs of 30 days or less) and performance-based actions 

(removals or reductions in grade).1 

In addition, GPO has established several internal administrative mechanisms to hear and resolve 

employee grievances. Over seventy-five percent of GPO employees are covered by collective 

bargaining agreements and may use the negotiated grievance procedures provided in these 

agreements.2 When an employee submits a grievance under these procedures, the matter is 

presented to the agency and, if necessary, submitted to binding arbitration. Exceptions to the 

arbitral award may be taken to the FLRA,3 or, if the grievant objects to an appealable adverse 

action or performance-based action by the agency, judicial review of the arbitral award may be 

1 See 5 U.S.C. 4303, 7512, 7513. 

2 See, e.g., Article VII, Master Labor-Management Agreement between Joint Council of 

Unions, GPO and the GPO, effective April 25, 1988; see generally, 5 U.S.C. 7121-7122. 

3 See 5 U.S.C 7122 and 7703. 

- 79 -
obtained in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.1 GPO has also established 

a process for handling and resolving complaints of discrimination, and a general administrative 

grievance procedure under which non-members of bargaining units may present other kinds of 

grievances to GPO management.2 

1 See 5 U.S.C. 7121(f). 

2 See GPO Instruction 680.1B, CH-1 (July 25, 1985). 

- 80 -
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

Substantive Rights 

GPO, like GAO, is covered under section 717 of Title VII, section 15 of the Age Discrimination 

Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Pay Act (EPA), and section 509 of the ADA,1 and is not 

subject to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.2 The substantive rights and protections afforded 

GPO employees under these laws therefore parallel those afforded GAO employees. 

GPO is also included under provisions of civil service statutes that forbid prohibited personnel 

practices.3 It is a prohibited personnel practice for a GPO employee who has personnel authority4 

to discriminate in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, or the EPA.5 Prohibited personnel practices 

also forbid retaliation for the exercise of certain appeal and “whistleblower” rights with respect to 

any applicable law.6 

1 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. 633a (ADEA); 29 U.S.C. 206(d) (EPA); 42 

U.S.C. 12209 (ADA). Even before enactment of the CAA, most GPO employees were 

covered under Title VII, the ADEA, and the EPA, because these laws covered units of the 

legislative branch “having positions in the competitive service,” and most GPO employees are 

in the competitive service. However, sections 201(c)(1) and 203(d) of the CAA amended 

Title VII, the ADEA, and the FLSA (of which the EPA is a part) to include GPO by name, 

and all of its employees, under the coverage of these laws. GPO was included under the 

coverage of section 509 of the ADA as originally enacted in 1990. 

2 GPO has advised that section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791(b), applies to the 

executive branch, and, as an agency in the legislative branch, it is not included. 

3 5 U.S.C. 2302(a)(2)(C). 

4 I.e., an employee “who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve 

any personnel action.” 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1). 

5 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1)(A)-(C). However, according to GPO, the agency is not covered by the 

prohibited personnel practice that forbids discrimination “on the basis of handicapping 

condition, as prohibited under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” 5 U.S.C. 

2302(b)(1)(D). 

6 The prohibited personnel practices include discrimination because of the exercise of appeal, 

complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, assisting any other individual in the exercise 

of such a right, or for refusing to obey an unlawful order. 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9). Prohibited 

personnel practices also include discrimination for disclosure of information reasonably 

(continued...) 

- 81 -
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights and Protections . 

At GPO, as at GAO, the basic prohibitions against discrimination under the anti-discrimination 

laws (title VII, ADEA, ADA and EPA) are generally the same as those afforded other federal 

sector employees, those in the private sector, and other legislative branch employees covered 

under the CAA. 

Procedures 

The administrative and judicial procedures available to GPO employees with discrimination 

complaints are generally the same as those available to executive branch employees. 

Administrative 

The procedures for GPO employees are similar to those at GAO, but are significantly different 

from those under the CAA. Executive branch procedures offer multiple stages of fact finding, 

decision making, and review, which can be lengthier than under the CAA, and the employing 

agency plays a much greater role in the initial counseling, mediation, investigation and decision 

phases. 

The EEO complaints procedures available to GPO employees include mechanisms for 

investigating complaints and taking enforcement action. GPO’s EEO Service investigates 

individual complaints, the EEOC monitors compliance with final decisions of the Commission, 

and the Office of Special Counsel has authority for taking enforcement actions in discrimination 

cases, including investigation with or without a charge, seeking corrective action or stays, and 

disciplinary action. Although similar enforcement authorities are available in the private sector at 

the EEOC, there is no comparable authority under the CAA, which establishes a dispute 

resolution process that provides confidential counseling and mediation and an independent 

administrative hearing. 

GPO employees with discrimination complaints generally are afforded access to independent 

administrative tribunals to the same extent as executive branch employees. Final GPO decisions 

may be appealed to the EEOC, and certain complaints may be reviewed by the MSPB or the 

FLRA prior to EEOC review. GPO employees also enjoy the protection of the Office of Special 

Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes allegations of EEO violations government-wide. 

Unlike executive branch employees, however, GPO employees may not obtain EEOC review of 

complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. Other legislative branch employees 

covered by the CAA may obtain review of any discrimination complaint by the independent Office 

- 87 -
of Compliance Board, but the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance has no investigatory 

or prosecutorial authority in EEO cases. 

Judicial 

Employees at GPO have the same right as executive branch employees to file a civil action under 

anti-discrimination laws at various points after filing an administrative complaint or, in the case of 

an ADEA or EPA claim, as an alternative to filing an administrative complaint. Even after 

exhausting administrative remedies, these employees retain the right to file a civil action in federal 

district court and have a trial de novo. A jury trial is available in cases under Title VII and the 

ADA, but probably not under the ADEA and EPA. 

For private sector employees and covered legislative branch employees under the CAA, the right 

to file a civil action and request a jury trial is generally available in discrimination cases. 

However, under the CAA, a covered employee who elects to pursue an administrative rather than 

judicial complaint may obtain only appellate judicial review in the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit, after exhausting administrative remedies. 

GPO employees also enjoy broad protections against retaliation for asserting rights under antidiscrimination laws, similar to the protections available to employees of GAO and the executive 

branch. GPO employees may seek administrative remedies under the discrimination complaints 

procedure or negotiated grievance procedure at GPO, or under civil service law. They can also 

gain access to federal district court in claims of retaliation under Title VII and EPA, but the law is 

uncertain with respect to ADEA and ADA violations. By comparison, covered legislative branch 

employees are protected by section 207 of the CAA, which prohibits retaliation for the exercise of 

rights with respect to any CAA law, including any of the anti-discrimination laws, and private 

sector employees are protected under specified statutory anti-retaliation provisions in these laws. 

Relief 

Most types of relief available for discrimination violations are the same for GPO employees as for 

other legislative branch employees covered under the CAA, as well as executive branch and 

private sector employees. However, two kinds of damages are available to private sector 

employees and employees covered under the CAA that are not available to GPO or executive 

branch employees: (a) compensatory damages for discrimination involving race, ancestry, and 

ethnicity, under 42 U.S.C. 1981; and (b) liquidated damages in the case of a willful violation of 

the ADEA, in an amount equal to the amount owing as a result of the violation. 

In addition, certain punitive damages and penalties are available against private sector employers 

in title VII and ADA cases that are not available against federal government employers, including 

employing offices under the CAA, in the executive branch, and GPO. 

Timeliness in Resolving Discrimination Complaints 

Commenters expressed concern about the slowness with which they believe GPO processes 

discrimination cases. 

- 88 -
The EEOC has reported that the average case processing time by GPO was 620 days for cases 

closed in FY94, and 940 days for cases closed in FY93.1 Of the more than 80 federal agencies 

included in the EEOC survey, GPO was in the 15%, with the longest average case processing 

times. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issues annual reports on case handling in the 

federal sector agencies over which it exercises jurisdiction. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1994, the 

EEOC reported that the average processing time at GPO, leading to the closure of a total of 

54 cases, was 620 days per case. In that year, GPO's rank among federal agencies was 72nd 

out of 84 agencies, where the first agency on the list has the lowest average days per case. In 

FY 1993, the average case processing time for a total of 23 cases closed at GPO was 940 

days per case. That placed GPO 72nd among 80 agencies on which EEOC reported. See 

EEOC, “Federal Sector Report on EEO Complaints and Appeals -- By Federal Agencies for 

Fiscal Year 1994,” at pages 34-36; EEOC, “Federal Sector Report on EEO Complaints and 

Appeals -- By Federal Agencies for Fiscal Year 1993,” at pages 34-36. 

- 89 -

1 
Procedures 

Administrative 

GPO — unlike GAO — is subject to the requirements prescribed by the EEOC for agency EEO 

programs, and to the EEOC’s authority to hear appeals from GPO’s decisions on discrimination 

complaints.1 The EEOC’s authority with respect to GPO extends to discrimination under Title 

VII, the ADEA, and the EPA,2 but not under the ADA.3 

The GPO Discrimination Complaint Process. GPO’s Equal Employment Opportunity Service 

(EEO Service) administers a process for resolving complaints of discrimination against GPO. For 

allegations of a violation of title VII, the ADEA, and the EPA, the complaints process is governed 

by EEOC’s regulations for executive branch agencies,4 and for allegations of ADA violations, 

GPO’s complaints process is similar.5 Under this process, GPO employees who allege violations 

of anti-discrimination laws must bring the matter to the attention of an EEO counselor within 45 

6 (...continued) 

believed to evidence a violation of law or gross mismanagement. 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). 

1 See 29 C.F.R. part 1614. Reflecting the terms of the anti-discrimination laws prior to the 

enactment of the CAA, EEOC’s regulations state that their coverage includes units of the 

legislative branch “having positions in the competitive service,” but do not expressly cover 

GPO in its entirety. 29 C.F.R. 1614.103(b)(4). However, the EEOC has advised that it 

intends to update its regulations to cover GPO by name, in conformity with the amendments 

made by the CAA. 

2 See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(b) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. 633a(b) (ADEA); Section 1 of Reorg. Plan 

No. 1 of 1978, reproduced in 5 U.S.C. appendix (transferring to the EEOC the authority to 

enforce and administer the EPA); 29 C.F.R. 1614.103(a), (b)(4). 

3 Section 509(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12209(5), which was added by section 201(c)(3)(E) 

of the CAA, provides that, with respect to GPO employees, the authorities of the EEOC are 

to be exercised by the head of GPO. 

4 See GPO Instruction 650.1C, “Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action 

Programs in the Government Printing Office” (Mar. 29, 1979); GPO Notice 650-29, 

“Changes to the Discrimination Complaint Process” (Dec. 1, 1992). The 1992 Notice advised 

employees that EEOC’s new regulations, at 29 C.F.R. part 1614, had gone into effect, and 

that the discrimination complaint process had been changed. The Notice also stated that 

GPO’s Instruction 650.1C was in the process of being revised. 

5 See GPO Notice 650-30, “Procedures for filing Discrimination Complaints Based on 

Disability” (May 5, 1993). 

- 82 -
days of the alleged act. The EEO Service provides counseling to the complainant and offers 

voluntary mediation at the option of the complainant.1 

If attempts to resolve the matter informally are not successful, a formal complaint is submitted, 

which is investigated by GPO’s EEO Service.2 After receiving the investigation report, or after 

180 days, the complainant may request a hearing, in which case the EEOC appoints an 

administrative judge to conduct the hearing and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and 

order appropriate relief.3 After the hearing, or if the complainant declines to request a hearing, 

GPO has 60 days within which to issue a final agency decision, including findings and appropriate 

remedies and relief. GPO may reject or modify the findings and conclusions or relief ordered by 

the administrative judge, but, if the agency does not do so within the 60-day deadline, the 

administrative judge’s order becomes the final agency decision.4 

The GPO Negotiated Grievance Procedures. Members of bargaining units may also grieve 

claims of unlawful discrimination under the negotiated grievance procedures established under 

collective bargaining agreements.5 

Appeal to the EEOC. GPO employees may have the EEOC review a final GPO decision on a 

1 See GPO Instruction 650.12 (June 3, 1994), “Mediation for Equal Employment Opportunity 

Claims.” The mediators are EEO counselors or other GPO employees trained as mediators. 

2 In the case of a class complaint, necessary fact-gathering is ordinarily conducted by the parties 

through discovery, although the administrative judge may request that the agency conduct an 

investigation if necessary. See 29 C.F.R. 1614.204(f); Paragraphs 11.f-g of GPO Notice 650-

30 (May 5, 1993). 

3 See EEOC’s regulations at 29 C.F.R. 1614.108(f). For claims of discrimination on the basis 

of disability, for which GPO is not governed by EEOC regulations, GPO’s regulations do not 

authorize the employee to request a hearing until the investigation is completed, even if it 

takes longer than 180 days. Paragraph 10.d(2) of GPO Notice 650-30. If a hearing is 

requested in a disability case, GPO, by agreement with the EEOC, appoints an EEOC 

administrative judge to hear the case. 

4 See EEOC’s regulations at 29 C.F.R. 1614.109(g). For claims of discrimination on the basis 

of disability, GPO’s regulations do not cause the administrative judge’s order to become the 

agency’s final decision, even if the agency takes longer than 60 days to reach a final decision. 

Paragraph 10.d(2) of GPO Notice 650-30. 

5 See 29 C.F.R. 1614.301. 

- 83 -
discrimination complaint (except for complaints alleging disability discrimination).1 A grievant 

under a negotiated grievance procedure may have the EEOC review the final decision of the 

arbitrator or the FLRA.2 

“Mixed Case” Complaints and Appeals. Even though the GPO is in the legislative branch, 

certain GPO employees are entitled to appeal certain kinds of agency actions to the MSPB.3 Such 

an appeal to the MSPB may include allegations of employment discrimination under any of the 

anti-discrimination laws applicable at GPO. Civil service statutes and regulations provide a 

multiplicity of appeal rights available for “mixed case” complaints and appeals in the federal 

government.4 These provisions afford the employee various options to elect consideration of the 

complaint sequentially under the GPO’s EEO complaint procedure, by the MSPB, by the EEOC, 

and, if these appellate boards disagree, by a Presidentially appointed Special Panel.5 

Enforcement of EEO Decisions and Settlements. The complainant may appeal to the EEOC for 

a determination as to whether the agency has complied with a settlement agreement or final 

agency decision,6 or for enforcement of an EEOC final decision.7 The EEOC has also directed its 

Office of Federal Operations to ascertain whether an employing agency is implementing a 

decision, and to submit findings and recommendations for enforcement to the EEOC or other 

appropriate agency, and, where appropriate, the EEOC may refer the matter to the Office of 

Special Counsel for enforcement action.8 (The Special Counsel’s enforcement authority is 

described below.) 

1 See 29 C.F.R. 1614.401(a)-(b). 

2 See 29 C.F.R. 1614.401(c). 

3 These include serious adverse actions resulting from a performance appraisal or effected by a 

RIF and certain other appealable adverse actions. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. 

(performance appraisals); 5 U.S.C. 7511 et seq. (appealable adverse actions); see generally 5 

C.F.R. 1201.3 (summary of MSPB’s appellate jurisdiction). 

4 5 U.S.C. 7702; 5 C.F.R. 1201.151-1201.175 (MSPB regulations); 29 C.F.R. 1614.302-

1614.310 (EEOC regulations). 

5 Complaints asserting discrimination on the basis of disability, not being appealable to the 

EEOC, are also not included under the provisions of civil service statute and regulation 

governing “mixed cases.” 

6 29 C.F.R. 1614.504. 

7 29 C.F.R. 1614.503. 

8 Id. 

- 84 -
Other Avenues of Enforcement. Under civil service law applicable to GPO, the Special Counsel 

is responsible for investigating any allegation of the occurrence of a prohibited personnel practice, 

and is authorized to conduct an investigation even in the absence of an allegation.1 Based on the 

outcome of the investigation, the Special Counsel may request a stay from the MSPB, may submit 

a report to the agency involved in recommending corrective action, may petition the MSPB for 

corrective action, or may submit a complaint to the MSPB recommending disciplinary action. An 

employee may apply directly to the MSPB for corrective action or stay in the case where an 

agency retaliates because of “whistleblowing” by the employee.2 

Judicial 

Civil Action. Unlike GAO employees, whose right to file a civil action is affected by the 

GAOPA and the Ramey decision,3 GPO employees have the right to file a civil action to the 

full extent provided under the applicable anti-discrimination laws. A GPO employee may file 

a civil action after having filed a complaint and after having reached one of four stages in the 

administrative processing of the complaint: (i) after 180 days from filing the complaint with 

the employing agency, if there is no final agency decision on the complaint, or (ii) within 90 

days of receipt of notice of final action by the employing agency, or (iii) after 180 days from 

appealing to the EEOC, if there is no final decision by EEOC, or (iv) within 90 days of receipt 

of notice of final decision by EEOC on appeal.

4 (In the case of an EPA complaint, the employee 

may file a civil action regardless of whether he or she has pursued any administrative complaint 

processing.)5 

As explained in the section on GAO, a jury trial may be requested in civil actions under Title VII 

or the ADA if the complaining party seeks compensatory damages, but a jury trial is not available 

in an EPA action, and probably not in an ADEA action, brought against a federal agency. And 

GPO employees, like GAO employees, may not be able to bring a civil action in case of retaliation 

for exercising ADEA or ADA rights. However, as retaliation is forbidden under applicable EEO 

regulations,6 and under prohibited personnel practices, GPO employees may seek protection 

against retaliation through available administrative procedures. 

1 5 U.S.C. 1214-1215. 

2 5 U.S.C. 1221. 

3 Ramey v. Bowsher, 9 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

4 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c); 29 U.S.C. 633a(c); 42 U.S.C. 12209(5); 29 C.F.R. 1614.408. 

5 29 U.S.C. 216(b) (right to file a civil action under the FLSA, of which the EPA is a part); 29 

C.F.R. 1614.409. 

6 See 29 C.F.R. 1614.101(b) (EEOC regulations); Paragraph 8 of GPO Notice 650-30, 

“Procedures for Filing Discrimination Complaints Based on Disability” (May 5, 1993). 

- 85 -
Relief 

The relief available in an EEO case brought by a GPO employee is the same as for a GAO 

employee. In appropriate cases, this may include reinstatement or hiring, with or without back 

pay, or other injunctive relief.1 In addition, in a case under Title VII or the ADA, compensatory 

damages may also be available for intentional discrimination,2 and in a case under the EPA, 

double damages may be available as liquidated damages, unless the employer shows that its act 

or omission was in good faith.3 

1 In case of a violation of Title VII or the ADA, the following relief may be available to a 

GPO employee: Enjoining unlawful employment practices, ordering that such affirmative 

steps be taken as may be appropriate, including reinstatement or hiring, with or without 

back pay, or any other equitable relief as may be deemed appropriate. Interest may be 

awarded to compensate for delay in payment. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g); 42 U.S.C. 2000e16(d); 42 U.S.C. 12209(5). In case of a violation of the ADEA, the relief available to a GPO 

employee is such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of the ADEA. 29 

U.S.C 633a(c). In case of a violation of the EPA, a GPO employee may recover any 

amount withheld from an employee in violation of EPA requirements. 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

2 42 U.S.C. 1981a affords compensatory damages for intentional discrimination in violation 

of Title VII or the ADA. In such a case, compensatory damages for future pecuniary 

losses, emotional pain and suffering, and other nonpecuniary losses are capped at no more 

than $300,000. 

3 See 29 U.S.C. 206(d)(3), 216(b), 260. 

- 86 -
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights and Protections . 

At GPO, as at GAO, the basic prohibitions against discrimination under the anti-discrimination 

laws (title VII, ADEA, ADA and EPA) are generally the same as those afforded other federal 

sector employees, those in the private sector, and other legislative branch employees covered 

under the CAA. 

Procedures 

The administrative and judicial procedures available to GPO employees with discrimination 

complaints are generally the same as those available to executive branch employees. 

Administrative 

The procedures for GPO employees are similar to those at GAO, but are significantly different 

from those under the CAA. Executive branch procedures offer multiple stages of fact finding, 

decision making, and review, which can be lengthier than under the CAA, and the employing 

agency plays a much greater role in the initial counseling, mediation, investigation and decision 

phases. 

The EEO complaints procedures available to GPO employees include mechanisms for 

investigating complaints and taking enforcement action. GPO’s EEO Service investigates 

individual complaints, the EEOC monitors compliance with final decisions of the Commission, 

and the Office of Special Counsel has authority for taking enforcement actions in discrimination 

cases, including investigation with or without a charge, seeking corrective action or stays, and 

disciplinary action. Although similar enforcement authorities are available in the private sector at 

the EEOC, there is no comparable authority under the CAA, which establishes a dispute 

resolution process that provides confidential counseling and mediation and an independent 

administrative hearing. 

GPO employees with discrimination complaints generally are afforded access to independent 

administrative tribunals to the same extent as executive branch employees. Final GPO decisions 

may be appealed to the EEOC, and certain complaints may be reviewed by the MSPB or the 

FLRA prior to EEOC review. GPO employees also enjoy the protection of the Office of Special 

Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes allegations of EEO violations government-wide. 

Unlike executive branch employees, however, GPO employees may not obtain EEOC review of 

complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. Other legislative branch employees 

covered by the CAA may obtain review of any discrimination complaint by the independent Office 

- 87 -
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993 

(FMLA) 

Substantive Rights 

GPO, like GAO, is covered by the provisions of civil service law enacted by the FMLA1 and by 

OPM’s FMLA regulations,2 which are described in the section of this study on GAO. GPO has 

also promulgated its own internal policy to ensure FMLA compliance, and to provide instructions 

for processing FMLA requests.3 

Procedures 

The FMLA civil service provisions do not provide any administrative or judicial processes by 

which employees may seek redress for violations. Therefore, employees who believe their rights 

have been violated must rely on the various remedial provisions available generally for 

employment-related disputes in the federal government. Several administrative and judicial 

avenues are available to GPO employees: 

Appeal to the MSPB. As GAO employees may turn to the PAB to seek redress for FMLA 

violations, a GPO employee may request MSPB review of an appealable GPO action that the 

employee believes was in violation of the FMLA. For example, if an employee suffers an 

appealable adverse action or performance-based action, the employee may appeal under civil 

1 5 U.S.C. 6381-6387, added by Pub. L. No. 103-3, title II, 107 Stat. 19 (Feb. 5, 1993). 

Coverage of the FMLA civil service provisions includes, among others, most employees of 

agencies headed by Presidential appointees, and the Public Printer is such a Presidential 

appointee. See 5 U.S.C. 2105(a)(1)(A), (D), 6301(2)(A), 6381(1)(A). 

2 5 C.F.R. 630.1201-630.1211 (regulations promulgated by OPM). Regulations 

promulgated by the Secretary of Labor implementing the private sector provisions of the 

FMLA contain a provision stating that these regulations also apply to GPO. 29 C.F.R. 

825.109(d). However, this provision is incorrect, since the private sector FMLA provisions 

do not apply to any employee covered by the civil service FMLA provisions. See 29 U.S.C. 

2611(2)(B)(I). A Department of Labor official has acknowledged orally that the regulations’ 

purported coverage of GPO is incorrect, and has said that this will be confirmed to the Office 

of Compliance in writing. 

3 GPO Instruction 645.16, “Family/Medical Leave Without Pay (FMLWOP) Under the Family 

and Medical Leave Act of 1993” (Aug. 5, 1993). 

- 91 -
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 

(FLSA) 

Substantive Rights 

Statutes 

Most GPO employee have been covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) since the 

enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974.1 The CAA amended the FLSA so 

as to extend coverage to all nonexempt employees.2 The substantive provisions of the FLSA and 

OPM’s regulations implementing the FLSA, which also cover GPO, are described in the section 

of this study on GAO. 

Some GPO employees have additional coverage under the civil service laws and OPM 

regulations. Those GPO employees whose compensation is determined by a conference between 

the Public Printer and a committee selected by the trades affected, are entitled to overtime in 

accordance with the overtime provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5544.3 Employees are entitled to overtime 

(at a rate of not less than time and one-half) for work in excess of 40 hours a week or 8 hours 

a day. OPM is been responsible for administering this provision in conjunction with its 

responsibilities for administering the FLSA. By regulation, OPM is to prescribe what hours 

shall be deemed to be hours of work and what hours of work shall be deemed to be overtime 

hours for purposes of section 7 of the FLSA, so as to ensure that no employee receives less 

than what he or she would receive under 5 U.S.C. 5544.4 

GPO and its employees are also covered under the pay provisions of the Kiess Act (which applies 

to GPO only).5 Among other things, this statute states that the “minimum pay of journeymen 

printers, pressman, and bookbinders employed in the Government Printing Office shall be at the 

1 See 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(A)(iii), added by section 6(a) of Pub. L. No. 93-259, 88 Stat. 58 

(April 8, 1974). This provision formerly referred to “any unit of the legislative or judicial 

branch of the Government which has positions in the competitive service.” 

2 The CAA, aside from applying certain rights and protections of the FLSA to the legislative 

branch, amended this definitional section of the FLSA by striking the reference to 

“legislative” in clause (iii) and adding as a new clause (vi) “the Government Printing 

Office.” 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(A)(vi), added by section 203(d) of Pub. L. No. 104-1, 109 

Stat. 10 (January 23, 1995). 

3 46 Comp. Gen. 217 (1966); B-191619, 1978 WL 9921 (C.G. May 9, 1978). 

4 See section 2(42)(B) of Pub. L. No. 102-378, 106 Stat. 1352, amending 5 U.S.C. 5544(a). 

5 44 U.S.C. 305. 

- 95 -
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 

(OSHA) 

Substantive Rights 

GPO is currently covered by section 19 of the OSHA,1 as well as the related provisions of 5

U.S.C. 7902, which require GPO to establish and maintain a comprehensive occupational safety

and health program. These are the same provisions as apply to GAO, and the requirements of

these provisions are described in the GAO portion of this study.

Regulations

GPO Instructions. Although the OSHA regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor are

not binding on GPO, the applicable statutes require that GPO’s OSHA program be consistent

with the standards promulgated by the Secretary, and GPO operates through negotiated

agreements and GPO-issued instructions as though the Secretary’s regulations did apply. The

GPO instructions and agreements address issues ranging from the creation of safety and health

programs to the establishment of safety requirements and procedures, and refer to the Secretary’s

regulations as guidance in developing these instructions.2

Procedures 

Administrative

GPO’s complaint procedures. Under procedures established by GPO,3 employees are instructed

to report hazards or unsafe conditions in writing to their supervisor. If corrective action is not

1 29 U.S.C. 668. 

2 For example, GPO’s instruction establishing its “Occupational Safety and Health Policy” cites 

section 19 of the OSHA, Executive Order 12196, (describing the Occupational Safety and 

Health Program for Federal Employees), and 29 C.F.R. 1960 as the guidelines that the agency 

relied on in establishing the policy. See GPO Instruction 670.42, “Occupational Safety and 

Health Policy” (Aug. 29, 1986). See also, e.g. GPO Instruction 670.50, “Electrical and 

Mechanical Lockout-Tagout Safety Procedures” (May 1, 1991) (“It is the policy of the GPO 

that the OSHA safety regulations appearing in 29 C.F.R. 1910.47 be adopted to provide 

maximum employee protection and that the procedures identified in this Instruction be 

followed to implement that regulation.”); GPO Instruction 670.1B, “Foot Protection 

Program” (May 5, 1995) (citing as authority 5 U.S.C. 7902 and 29 U.S.C. 668). 

3 See GPO Instruction 670.55, “Procedure to Report Hazards, Unsafe Conditions or Practices” 

(Oct. 22, 1993). 

- 99 -
taken by the supervisor, or the employee believes that the action taken is not appropriate, the 

employee may submit a follow-up report. Within 30 days, the unit Occupational Safety and 

Health Committee (OSHC) will forward to the employee a written report on the status of the 

complaint and corrective action. If the employee believes that the determination of the unit 

OSHC does not adequately address the problem, or that the recommendations to correct the 

situation are not appropriate, the employee may refer the problem to the GPO safety office. Upon 

request of the employee his or her name will not be disclosed. 

The negotiated grievance procedure for bargaining unit employees may also be used by bargaining 

unit employees who believe that occupational safety and health standards are violated. 

GPO’s compliance mechanisms. GPO’s Occupational Health and Environmental Services unit 

conducts comprehensive safety and industrial hygiene surveys and inspections on a regular basis, 

maintains a computerized tracking system to follow through on corrective actions required as a 

result of inspections, conducts formal accident investigations, maintains a plan for hazard 

abatement and control, and conducts hazard awareness training for employees and supervisors.1 

Based on the Labor Secretary’s safety and health regulations, GPO established the Occupational 

Safety and Health Committee Program. A Joint Labor-Management Safety Committee was 

created, allowing direct union/employee participation and discussion of safety-related matters. 

Under the Program, there are also seventeen local Occupational Safety and Health Committees.2 

The Joint Labor-Management Committee meets monthly to discuss issues that are better 

addressed globally than at the local level, and recommends corrections. The local Committees 

perform various safety-related activities, such as monitoring safety and health programs; and 

assisting accident investigations. 

Judicial 

Under current law no judicial remedies are available to GPO employees to redress safety and 

health issues. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

Unlike GAO and the Library, the rights and protections of OSHA are not made applicable to GPO 

by section 215 of the CAA. 

1 See comments (dated May 17, 1996) submitted for the study by GPO Director of 

Occupational Health and Environmental Services. 

2 See GPO Instruction 670.49, “Occupational Safety and Health Committees” (Feb. 21, 1990). 

- 100 -
EVALUATION 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Under present law, GPO has an internal investigation process and both administrative and 

negotiated grievance procedures to address employee safety and health complaints. By 

comparison, under the CAA the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance will exercise the 

authority to investigate and inspect places of employment under the jurisdiction of employing 

offices, as well as issue citations and prosecute violations that are not corrected by the employing 

office named in the citation or notification.1 

Record Keeping and Report Obligations. Section 19 of OSHA requires agency heads, including 

the Public Printer, to submit annual reports to the Secretary of Labor on occupational accidents 

and injuries and on the agency programs established under that section.2 Section 7902(e) of title 

5 imposes similar record keeping and reporting requirements on each agency. However, there is 

no apparent mechanism for enforcement of these sections against federal agencies. These 

provisions may arguably impose general record keeping requirements with respect to occupational 

accidents and injuries on GPO, because it is a federal agency within the meaning of those 

statutory provisions. 

GPO currently maintains an accident reporting and investigation program, under which 

supervisor’s reports, investigation reports of motor vehicle accidents, and medical injury reports 

are maintained.3 By comparison, the CAA and the proposed regulations thereunder do not 

require employing offices to comply with general safety and health record keeping requirements.4 

1 2 U.S.C. 1341(c). 

2 29 U.S.C. 668(a)(5). 

3 See GPO Instruction 670.8B, “Accident Reporting System” (Jan. 9, 1987). 

4 See 142 Cong. Rec. S11021, 3d col. (Sept. 19, 1996) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Under section 215 of the CAA). 

- 101 -
Judicial 

Under present law no judicial remedies are available to GPO employees. Nor would the CAA 

provide GPO employees with a judicial remedy, but the General Counsel or an employing office 

aggrieved by a final decision of the Board following a hearing or variance proceeding may file a 

petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant to 

section 407 of the CAA.1 

1 2 U.S.C. 1341(c)(5). 

- 102 -
rate of 90 cents an hour for the time actually employed.” In addition, the Act states that the 

Public Printer may grant to an employee who is paid on an annual basis compensatory time off 

from duty, instead of overtime pay for overtime work.1 

Regulations 

GPO has issued GPO Instruction 640.7B, dated March 19, 1979 (amended December 2, 1994), 

governing general pay administration. Its intended purpose is “to serve managers as a practical 

guide concerning pay matters,” including overtime. Several aspects of this Instruction are worthy 

of note relative to the FLSA: 

C The Instruction seems to suggest that, for purposes of overtime, exempt employees 

include not only executive and administrative employees but also supervisory employees. 

While executive and administrative employees are indeed exempt under section 13 of the 

FLSA, “supervisors” as such are not included within the exemption. In addition, the 

FLSA overtime exemption afforded “professional” employees is not specifically mentioned 

in the Instruction. The GPO advises that it does “not believe the discrepancy [with respect 

to “supervisors”] has any practical impact.”2 In its view, the employees whom it exempts 

as “supervisors” would be exempt under the term “executive” as defined in the FLSA 

implementing regulations issued by OPM. With respect to “professional” employees, 

GPO advises that despite the lack of the term “professional” in its regulations, it 

nevertheless treats such employees as exempt, based on OPM grading and classification 

standards. 

C The Instruction provides that compensatory time off in lieu of overtime will be granted to 

employees in grades PG-14 and PG-15, who perform irregular or occasional overtime 

work that is ordered or approved by variously named GPO officials.3 

On June 5, 1995, the Public Printer issued a Notice informing supervisors at all grades, series, and 

pay levels that any approved work in excess of their basic tour of duty will not be paid at current 

overtime rates of 150 percent, but with compensatory time off instead. For each hour of overtime 

worked, a supervisor will receive one hour of compensatory time. 

1 44 U.S.C. 305(b). 

2 Memorandum from GPO to Office of Compliance (October 9, 1996). 

3 The authority for allowing compensatory time off is apparently derived from the Kiess Act, 44 

U.S.C. § 305(b), since the FLSA does not authorize GPO to satisfy its overtime pay 

obligations with compensatory time off. 

- 96 -
Procedures 

GPO employees may seek redress for violation of their FLSA rights through several

administrative and judicial avenues: 

Administrative

OPM’s FLSA compliance process and general claims settlement authority. As more fully

described in the section of this study on GAO, employees of GPO who allege violation of their

FLSA rights may apply to OPM under its statutory responsibility to receive and settle federal

employees’ claims against the government. 

GPO employees who are members of bargaining units may also submit FLSA complaints under

the negotiated grievance procedure, and non-members may proceed under GPO’s administrative

grievance procedures.

Judicial 

An action to recover any unpaid compensation owed under the FLSA may be brought in any 

court of competent jurisdiction.1 FLSA actions by federal employees may be brought, under the 

Tucker Act, in the Court of Federal Claims or, if the amount claimed does not exceed $10,000, in 

an appropriate federal district court.2 

Relief 

Under the FLSA, GPO employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime compensation. 

Additionally, liquidated damages are available, in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid 

minimum wages or unpaid compensation, except that a court has discretion to reduce or dispense 

with the award of liquidated damages if the employer shows that the violation was in good faith, 

and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a 

violation. For a violation of the FLSA prohibition against retaliation, legal or equitable relief may 

be available, including employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and 

an additional amount of liquidated damages.3 

The FLSA also provides that the court shall allow reasonable attorney's fees.4 

1 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

2 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 1491. 

3 29 U.S.C. 216(b), 260. 

4 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

- 97 -
EVALUATION 

GPO is subject to the same FLSA provisions, regulations, and procedures as is the GAO, and the 

rights and protections under these laws and regulations were evaluated in the section of this study 

on the GAO. Thus, except as noted below, the evaluation for GAO generally applies to GPO. 

GPO, unlike GAO, is not covered by 5 U.S.C. 5543(a), which authorizes federal agencies, at the 

request of an employee, to grant compensatory time off in lieu of FLSA overtime pay for time 

spent in “irregular or occasional overtime work.” Instead, GPO is covered by a provision of the 

Kiess Act that authorizes the Public Printer to grant compensatory time off for employees who are 

paid on an annual basis.1 Unlike section 5543(a), which includes an express exception from FLSA 

requirements, it is unclear to what extent this Kiess Act provision can be reconciled with the 

FLSA, which does not generally allow employers to satisfy overtime obligations with 

compensatory time off. Similarly, while the FLSA, as recently amended, provides a current 

minimum wage of $4.75 per hour,2 the rate specified in the Kiess Act remains at 90 cents per 

hour.3 

1 44 U.S.C. 305(b). 

2 Pub. L. No. 104-188 (August 20, 1996).

3 44 U.S.C. 305.

- 98 -
service law to the MSPB,1 and could argue that the adverse action violated the FMLA and should 

be reversed.2 

Administrative and Negotiated Grievance Procedures. For matters not appealable to the 

MSPB, employees can file a complaint under GPO’s general administrative grievance procedure, 

referred to above. Furthermore, a member of a bargaining unit at GPO can seek resolution of a 

claim under the negotiated grievance procedure. 

OPM’s General Claims Settlement Process. A GPO employee can also seek redress by applying 

to OPM under its statutory responsibility to receive and settle federal employees’ claims against 

the Government.3 

Judicial 

A GPO employee who appeals to the MSPB may obtain review of the MSPB decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.4 In appropriate cases, a GPO employee, like a GAO 

employee, may also bring suit in the Court of Federal Claims for money owed by the government 

as a result of an FMLA violation, and could seek restoration to position and correction of records, 

if warranted, as an incident to a monetary judgment. If the claim does not exceed $10,000, the 

employee can sue in federal district court.5 

Relief 

Since the FMLA civil service provisions do not specify what relief would be available in case of a 

violation, an aggrieved employee must rely on other laws or on general legal principles to obtain 

relief. For example, if an employee is demoted, or fired, or denied restoration, the employee can 

1 The MSPB’s appellate jurisdiction is summarized at 5 C.F.R. 1201.3. 

2 The MSPB has ruled that it has jurisdiction over the FMLA as a defense to an otherwise 

appealable action, and: “If an adverse action is predicated on the agency’s erroneous 

interference with an employee’s rights under the FMLA, such adverse action is in violation 

of law, and it may not be sustained.” Ramey v. U.S.P.S., 70 M.S.P.R .463, 467 (citing 5 

U.S.C. 7701(c)(2)(C)). 

3 The authority to settle claims against the government has historically been assigned to GAO 

under 31 U.S.C. 3702. However, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 

transferred this claims settlement authority to OMB as of June 30, 1996, subject to delegation. 

Sec. 211, Pub. L. No. 104-53, 109 Stat. 535-536 (1995), set out at 31 U.S.C. 501 note. 

OMB has delegated the authority to settle employee claims to OPM. 

4 See 5 U.S.C. 7703. 

5 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), 1491(a). 

- 92 -
claim compensation due under the Back Pay Act.1 The employee may also seek to recover the 

amount of benefits guaranteed by the FMLA that are unlawfully denied, and are therefore due and 

owing from the Government. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

The CAA does not affect the application of FMLA at GPO, unlike GAO and the Library, which 

the CAA removes from the civil service version of the FMLA, and places under the private sector 

FMLA.2 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

GPO is subject to the same FMLA civil service laws and regulations as GAO, and the rights 

and protections were evaluated in the GAO section of this study. The evaluation for GAO 

applies in nearly all respects for GPO as well. 

The civil service FMLA provisions afford greater substantive rights to employees than the 

private sector provisions, which are applicable under the CAA, but the civil service version of 

the FMLA does not provide administrative or judicial procedures. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Civil service law authorizes a GPO employee to appeal certain kinds of personnel actions to the 

MSPB, where the employee could argue that the agency’s action violated FMLA rights. 

Furthermore, GPO’s administrative grievance procedure is generally available for claims that 

cannot be presented to the MSPB, but this procedure does not offer a process independent of 

GPO management. The negotiated grievance procedure is also available, provided the employee 

is a member of a bargaining unit. 

By comparison, the CAA provides administrative procedures, including the right to an 

adjudicatory hearing and appeal to the independent Board of the Office of Compliance, for a 

covered employee who alleges any FMLA violation. 

1 5 U.S.C 5596. 

2 2 U.S.C. 1312(c), (e)(1). 

- 93 -
Judicial 

As discussed in the context of GAO, the civil service remedies and relief available under civil 

service law in a case of an FMLA violation are less protective of employee rights than those under 

the CAA and under private sector law. 

- 94 -
of Compliance Board, but the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance has no investigatory 

or prosecutorial authority in EEO cases. 

Judicial 

Employees at GPO have the same right as executive branch employees to file a civil action under 

anti-discrimination laws at various points after filing an administrative complaint or, in the case of 

an ADEA or EPA claim, as an alternative to filing an administrative complaint. Even after 

exhausting administrative remedies, these employees retain the right to file a civil action in federal 

district court and have a trial de novo. A jury trial is available in cases under Title VII and the 

ADA, but probably not under the ADEA and EPA. 

For private sector employees and covered legislative branch employees under the CAA, the right 

to file a civil action and request a jury trial is generally available in discrimination cases. 

However, under the CAA, a covered employee who elects to pursue an administrative rather than 

judicial complaint may obtain only appellate judicial review in the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit, after exhausting administrative remedies. 

GPO employees also enjoy broad protections against retaliation for asserting rights under antidiscrimination laws, similar to the protections available to employees of GAO and the executive 

branch. GPO employees may seek administrative remedies under the discrimination complaints 

procedure or negotiated grievance procedure at GPO, or under civil service law. They can also 

gain access to federal district court in claims of retaliation under Title VII and EPA, but the law is 

uncertain with respect to ADEA and ADA violations. By comparison, covered legislative branch 

employees are protected by section 207 of the CAA, which prohibits retaliation for the exercise of 

rights with respect to any CAA law, including any of the anti-discrimination laws, and private 

sector employees are protected under specified statutory anti-retaliation provisions in these laws. 

Relief 

Most types of relief available for discrimination violations are the same for GPO employees as for 

other legislative branch employees covered under the CAA, as well as executive branch and 

private sector employees. However, two kinds of damages are available to private sector 

employees and employees covered under the CAA that are not available to GPO or executive 

branch employees: (a) compensatory damages for discrimination involving race, ancestry, and 

ethnicity, under 42 U.S.C. 1981; and (b) liquidated damages in the case of a willful violation of 

the ADEA, in an amount equal to the amount owing as a result of the violation. 

In addition, certain punitive damages and penalties are available against private sector employers 

in title VII and ADA cases that are not available against federal government employers, including 

employing offices under the CAA, in the executive branch, and GPO. 

Timeliness in Resolving Discrimination Complaints 

Commenters expressed concern about the slowness with which they believe GPO processes 

discrimination cases. 

- 88 -
The EEOC has reported that the average case processing time by GPO was 620 days for cases 

closed in FY94, and 940 days for cases closed in FY93.1 Of the more than 80 federal agencies 

included in the EEOC survey, GPO was in the 15%, with the longest average case processing 

times. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issues annual reports on case handling in the 

federal sector agencies over which it exercises jurisdiction. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1994, the 

EEOC reported that the average processing time at GPO, leading to the closure of a total of 

54 cases, was 620 days per case. In that year, GPO's rank among federal agencies was 72nd 

out of 84 agencies, where the first agency on the list has the lowest average days per case. In 

FY 1993, the average case processing time for a total of 23 cases closed at GPO was 940 

days per case. That placed GPO 72nd among 80 agencies on which EEOC reported. See 

EEOC, “Federal Sector Report on EEO Complaints and Appeals -- By Federal Agencies for 

Fiscal Year 1994,” at pages 34-36; EEOC, “Federal Sector Report on EEO Complaints and 

Appeals -- By Federal Agencies for Fiscal Year 1993,” at pages 34-36. 

- 89 -

1 
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993 

(FMLA) 

Substantive Rights 

GPO, like GAO, is covered by the provisions of civil service law enacted by the FMLA1 and by 

OPM’s FMLA regulations,2 which are described in the section of this study on GAO. GPO has 

also promulgated its own internal policy to ensure FMLA compliance, and to provide instructions 

for processing FMLA requests.3 

Procedures 

The FMLA civil service provisions do not provide any administrative or judicial processes by 

which employees may seek redress for violations. Therefore, employees who believe their rights 

have been violated must rely on the various remedial provisions available generally for 

employment-related disputes in the federal government. Several administrative and judicial 

avenues are available to GPO employees: 

Appeal to the MSPB. As GAO employees may turn to the PAB to seek redress for FMLA 

violations, a GPO employee may request MSPB review of an appealable GPO action that the 

employee believes was in violation of the FMLA. For example, if an employee suffers an 

appealable adverse action or performance-based action, the employee may appeal under civil 

1 5 U.S.C. 6381-6387, added by Pub. L. No. 103-3, title II, 107 Stat. 19 (Feb. 5, 1993). 

Coverage of the FMLA civil service provisions includes, among others, most employees of 

agencies headed by Presidential appointees, and the Public Printer is such a Presidential 

appointee. See 5 U.S.C. 2105(a)(1)(A), (D), 6301(2)(A), 6381(1)(A). 

2 5 C.F.R. 630.1201-630.1211 (regulations promulgated by OPM). Regulations 

promulgated by the Secretary of Labor implementing the private sector provisions of the 

FMLA contain a provision stating that these regulations also apply to GPO. 29 C.F.R. 

825.109(d). However, this provision is incorrect, since the private sector FMLA provisions 

do not apply to any employee covered by the civil service FMLA provisions. See 29 U.S.C. 

2611(2)(B)(I). A Department of Labor official has acknowledged orally that the regulations’ 

purported coverage of GPO is incorrect, and has said that this will be confirmed to the Office 

of Compliance in writing. 

3 GPO Instruction 645.16, “Family/Medical Leave Without Pay (FMLWOP) Under the Family 

and Medical Leave Act of 1993” (Aug. 5, 1993). 

- 91 -
service law to the MSPB,1 and could argue that the adverse action violated the FMLA and should 

be reversed.2 

Administrative and Negotiated Grievance Procedures. For matters not appealable to the 

MSPB, employees can file a complaint under GPO’s general administrative grievance procedure, 

referred to above. Furthermore, a member of a bargaining unit at GPO can seek resolution of a 

claim under the negotiated grievance procedure. 

OPM’s General Claims Settlement Process. A GPO employee can also seek redress by applying 

to OPM under its statutory responsibility to receive and settle federal employees’ claims against 

the Government.3 

Judicial 

A GPO employee who appeals to the MSPB may obtain review of the MSPB decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.4 In appropriate cases, a GPO employee, like a GAO 

employee, may also bring suit in the Court of Federal Claims for money owed by the government 

as a result of an FMLA violation, and could seek restoration to position and correction of records, 

if warranted, as an incident to a monetary judgment. If the claim does not exceed $10,000, the 

employee can sue in federal district court.5 

Relief 

Since the FMLA civil service provisions do not specify what relief would be available in case of a 

violation, an aggrieved employee must rely on other laws or on general legal principles to obtain 

relief. For example, if an employee is demoted, or fired, or denied restoration, the employee can 

1 The MSPB’s appellate jurisdiction is summarized at 5 C.F.R. 1201.3. 

2 The MSPB has ruled that it has jurisdiction over the FMLA as a defense to an otherwise 

appealable action, and: “If an adverse action is predicated on the agency’s erroneous 

interference with an employee’s rights under the FMLA, such adverse action is in violation 

of law, and it may not be sustained.” Ramey v. U.S.P.S., 70 M.S.P.R .463, 467 (citing 5 

U.S.C. 7701(c)(2)(C)). 

3 The authority to settle claims against the government has historically been assigned to GAO 

under 31 U.S.C. 3702. However, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 

transferred this claims settlement authority to OMB as of June 30, 1996, subject to delegation. 

Sec. 211, Pub. L. No. 104-53, 109 Stat. 535-536 (1995), set out at 31 U.S.C. 501 note. 

OMB has delegated the authority to settle employee claims to OPM. 

4 See 5 U.S.C. 7703. 

5 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), 1491(a). 

- 92 -
claim compensation due under the Back Pay Act.1 The employee may also seek to recover the 

amount of benefits guaranteed by the FMLA that are unlawfully denied, and are therefore due and 

owing from the Government. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

The CAA does not affect the application of FMLA at GPO, unlike GAO and the Library, which 

the CAA removes from the civil service version of the FMLA, and places under the private sector 

FMLA.2 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

GPO is subject to the same FMLA civil service laws and regulations as GAO, and the rights 

and protections were evaluated in the GAO section of this study. The evaluation for GAO 

applies in nearly all respects for GPO as well. 

The civil service FMLA provisions afford greater substantive rights to employees than the 

private sector provisions, which are applicable under the CAA, but the civil service version of 

the FMLA does not provide administrative or judicial procedures. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Civil service law authorizes a GPO employee to appeal certain kinds of personnel actions to the 

MSPB, where the employee could argue that the agency’s action violated FMLA rights. 

Furthermore, GPO’s administrative grievance procedure is generally available for claims that 

cannot be presented to the MSPB, but this procedure does not offer a process independent of 

GPO management. The negotiated grievance procedure is also available, provided the employee 

is a member of a bargaining unit. 

By comparison, the CAA provides administrative procedures, including the right to an 

adjudicatory hearing and appeal to the independent Board of the Office of Compliance, for a 

covered employee who alleges any FMLA violation. 

1 5 U.S.C 5596. 

2 2 U.S.C. 1312(c), (e)(1). 

- 93 -
Judicial 

As discussed in the context of GAO, the civil service remedies and relief available under civil 

service law in a case of an FMLA violation are less protective of employee rights than those under 

the CAA and under private sector law. 

- 94 -
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 

(FLSA) 

Substantive Rights 

Statutes 

Most GPO employee have been covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) since the 

enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974.1 The CAA amended the FLSA so 

as to extend coverage to all nonexempt employees.2 The substantive provisions of the FLSA and 

OPM’s regulations implementing the FLSA, which also cover GPO, are described in the section 

of this study on GAO. 

Some GPO employees have additional coverage under the civil service laws and OPM 

regulations. Those GPO employees whose compensation is determined by a conference between 

the Public Printer and a committee selected by the trades affected, are entitled to overtime in 

accordance with the overtime provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5544.3 Employees are entitled to overtime 

(at a rate of not less than time and one-half) for work in excess of 40 hours a week or 8 hours 

a day. OPM is been responsible for administering this provision in conjunction with its 

responsibilities for administering the FLSA. By regulation, OPM is to prescribe what hours 

shall be deemed to be hours of work and what hours of work shall be deemed to be overtime 

hours for purposes of section 7 of the FLSA, so as to ensure that no employee receives less 

than what he or she would receive under 5 U.S.C. 5544.4 

GPO and its employees are also covered under the pay provisions of the Kiess Act (which applies 

to GPO only).5 Among other things, this statute states that the “minimum pay of journeymen 

printers, pressman, and bookbinders employed in the Government Printing Office shall be at the 

1 See 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(A)(iii), added by section 6(a) of Pub. L. No. 93-259, 88 Stat. 58 

(April 8, 1974). This provision formerly referred to “any unit of the legislative or judicial 

branch of the Government which has positions in the competitive service.” 

2 The CAA, aside from applying certain rights and protections of the FLSA to the legislative 

branch, amended this definitional section of the FLSA by striking the reference to 

“legislative” in clause (iii) and adding as a new clause (vi) “the Government Printing 

Office.” 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(A)(vi), added by section 203(d) of Pub. L. No. 104-1, 109 

Stat. 10 (January 23, 1995). 

3 46 Comp. Gen. 217 (1966); B-191619, 1978 WL 9921 (C.G. May 9, 1978). 

4 See section 2(42)(B) of Pub. L. No. 102-378, 106 Stat. 1352, amending 5 U.S.C. 5544(a). 

5 44 U.S.C. 305. 

- 95 -
rate of 90 cents an hour for the time actually employed.” In addition, the Act states that the 

Public Printer may grant to an employee who is paid on an annual basis compensatory time off 

from duty, instead of overtime pay for overtime work.1 

Regulations 

GPO has issued GPO Instruction 640.7B, dated March 19, 1979 (amended December 2, 1994), 

governing general pay administration. Its intended purpose is “to serve managers as a practical 

guide concerning pay matters,” including overtime. Several aspects of this Instruction are worthy 

of note relative to the FLSA: 

C The Instruction seems to suggest that, for purposes of overtime, exempt employees 

include not only executive and administrative employees but also supervisory employees. 

While executive and administrative employees are indeed exempt under section 13 of the 

FLSA, “supervisors” as such are not included within the exemption. In addition, the 

FLSA overtime exemption afforded “professional” employees is not specifically mentioned 

in the Instruction. The GPO advises that it does “not believe the discrepancy [with respect 

to “supervisors”] has any practical impact.”2 In its view, the employees whom it exempts 

as “supervisors” would be exempt under the term “executive” as defined in the FLSA 

implementing regulations issued by OPM. With respect to “professional” employees, 

GPO advises that despite the lack of the term “professional” in its regulations, it 

nevertheless treats such employees as exempt, based on OPM grading and classification 

standards. 

C The Instruction provides that compensatory time off in lieu of overtime will be granted to 

employees in grades PG-14 and PG-15, who perform irregular or occasional overtime 

work that is ordered or approved by variously named GPO officials.3 

On June 5, 1995, the Public Printer issued a Notice informing supervisors at all grades, series, and 

pay levels that any approved work in excess of their basic tour of duty will not be paid at current 

overtime rates of 150 percent, but with compensatory time off instead. For each hour of overtime 

worked, a supervisor will receive one hour of compensatory time. 

1 44 U.S.C. 305(b). 

2 Memorandum from GPO to Office of Compliance (October 9, 1996). 

3 The authority for allowing compensatory time off is apparently derived from the Kiess Act, 44 

U.S.C. § 305(b), since the FLSA does not authorize GPO to satisfy its overtime pay 

obligations with compensatory time off. 

- 96 -
Procedures 

GPO employees may seek redress for violation of their FLSA rights through several

administrative and judicial avenues: 

Administrative

OPM’s FLSA compliance process and general claims settlement authority. As more fully

described in the section of this study on GAO, employees of GPO who allege violation of their

FLSA rights may apply to OPM under its statutory responsibility to receive and settle federal

employees’ claims against the government. 

GPO employees who are members of bargaining units may also submit FLSA complaints under

the negotiated grievance procedure, and non-members may proceed under GPO’s administrative

grievance procedures.

Judicial 

An action to recover any unpaid compensation owed under the FLSA may be brought in any 

court of competent jurisdiction.1 FLSA actions by federal employees may be brought, under the 

Tucker Act, in the Court of Federal Claims or, if the amount claimed does not exceed $10,000, in 

an appropriate federal district court.2 

Relief 

Under the FLSA, GPO employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime compensation. 

Additionally, liquidated damages are available, in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid 

minimum wages or unpaid compensation, except that a court has discretion to reduce or dispense 

with the award of liquidated damages if the employer shows that the violation was in good faith, 

and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a 

violation. For a violation of the FLSA prohibition against retaliation, legal or equitable relief may 

be available, including employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and 

an additional amount of liquidated damages.3 

The FLSA also provides that the court shall allow reasonable attorney's fees.4 

1 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

2 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 1491. 

3 29 U.S.C. 216(b), 260. 

4 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

- 97 -
EVALUATION 

GPO is subject to the same FLSA provisions, regulations, and procedures as is the GAO, and the 

rights and protections under these laws and regulations were evaluated in the section of this study 

on the GAO. Thus, except as noted below, the evaluation for GAO generally applies to GPO. 

GPO, unlike GAO, is not covered by 5 U.S.C. 5543(a), which authorizes federal agencies, at the 

request of an employee, to grant compensatory time off in lieu of FLSA overtime pay for time 

spent in “irregular or occasional overtime work.” Instead, GPO is covered by a provision of the 

Kiess Act that authorizes the Public Printer to grant compensatory time off for employees who are 

paid on an annual basis.1 Unlike section 5543(a), which includes an express exception from FLSA 

requirements, it is unclear to what extent this Kiess Act provision can be reconciled with the 

FLSA, which does not generally allow employers to satisfy overtime obligations with 

compensatory time off. Similarly, while the FLSA, as recently amended, provides a current 

minimum wage of $4.75 per hour,2 the rate specified in the Kiess Act remains at 90 cents per 

hour.3 

1 44 U.S.C. 305(b). 

2 Pub. L. No. 104-188 (August 20, 1996).

3 44 U.S.C. 305.

- 98 -
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 

(OSHA) 

Substantive Rights 

GPO is currently covered by section 19 of the OSHA,1 as well as the related provisions of 5

U.S.C. 7902, which require GPO to establish and maintain a comprehensive occupational safety

and health program. These are the same provisions as apply to GAO, and the requirements of

these provisions are described in the GAO portion of this study.

Regulations

GPO Instructions. Although the OSHA regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor are

not binding on GPO, the applicable statutes require that GPO’s OSHA program be consistent

with the standards promulgated by the Secretary, and GPO operates through negotiated

agreements and GPO-issued instructions as though the Secretary’s regulations did apply. The

GPO instructions and agreements address issues ranging from the creation of safety and health

programs to the establishment of safety requirements and procedures, and refer to the Secretary’s

regulations as guidance in developing these instructions.2

Procedures 

Administrative

GPO’s complaint procedures. Under procedures established by GPO,3 employees are instructed

to report hazards or unsafe conditions in writing to their supervisor. If corrective action is not

1 29 U.S.C. 668. 

2 For example, GPO’s instruction establishing its “Occupational Safety and Health Policy” cites 

section 19 of the OSHA, Executive Order 12196, (describing the Occupational Safety and 

Health Program for Federal Employees), and 29 C.F.R. 1960 as the guidelines that the agency 

relied on in establishing the policy. See GPO Instruction 670.42, “Occupational Safety and 

Health Policy” (Aug. 29, 1986). See also, e.g. GPO Instruction 670.50, “Electrical and 

Mechanical Lockout-Tagout Safety Procedures” (May 1, 1991) (“It is the policy of the GPO 

that the OSHA safety regulations appearing in 29 C.F.R. 1910.47 be adopted to provide 

maximum employee protection and that the procedures identified in this Instruction be 

followed to implement that regulation.”); GPO Instruction 670.1B, “Foot Protection 

Program” (May 5, 1995) (citing as authority 5 U.S.C. 7902 and 29 U.S.C. 668). 

3 See GPO Instruction 670.55, “Procedure to Report Hazards, Unsafe Conditions or Practices” 

(Oct. 22, 1993). 

- 99 -
taken by the supervisor, or the employee believes that the action taken is not appropriate, the 

employee may submit a follow-up report. Within 30 days, the unit Occupational Safety and 

Health Committee (OSHC) will forward to the employee a written report on the status of the 

complaint and corrective action. If the employee believes that the determination of the unit 

OSHC does not adequately address the problem, or that the recommendations to correct the 

situation are not appropriate, the employee may refer the problem to the GPO safety office. Upon 

request of the employee his or her name will not be disclosed. 

The negotiated grievance procedure for bargaining unit employees may also be used by bargaining 

unit employees who believe that occupational safety and health standards are violated. 

GPO’s compliance mechanisms. GPO’s Occupational Health and Environmental Services unit 

conducts comprehensive safety and industrial hygiene surveys and inspections on a regular basis, 

maintains a computerized tracking system to follow through on corrective actions required as a 

result of inspections, conducts formal accident investigations, maintains a plan for hazard 

abatement and control, and conducts hazard awareness training for employees and supervisors.1 

Based on the Labor Secretary’s safety and health regulations, GPO established the Occupational 

Safety and Health Committee Program. A Joint Labor-Management Safety Committee was 

created, allowing direct union/employee participation and discussion of safety-related matters. 

Under the Program, there are also seventeen local Occupational Safety and Health Committees.2 

The Joint Labor-Management Committee meets monthly to discuss issues that are better 

addressed globally than at the local level, and recommends corrections. The local Committees 

perform various safety-related activities, such as monitoring safety and health programs; and 

assisting accident investigations. 

Judicial 

Under current law no judicial remedies are available to GPO employees to redress safety and 

health issues. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

Unlike GAO and the Library, the rights and protections of OSHA are not made applicable to GPO 

by section 215 of the CAA. 

1 See comments (dated May 17, 1996) submitted for the study by GPO Director of 

Occupational Health and Environmental Services. 

2 See GPO Instruction 670.49, “Occupational Safety and Health Committees” (Feb. 21, 1990). 

- 100 -
EVALUATION 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Under present law, GPO has an internal investigation process and both administrative and 

negotiated grievance procedures to address employee safety and health complaints. By 

comparison, under the CAA the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance will exercise the 

authority to investigate and inspect places of employment under the jurisdiction of employing 

offices, as well as issue citations and prosecute violations that are not corrected by the employing 

office named in the citation or notification.1 

Record Keeping and Report Obligations. Section 19 of OSHA requires agency heads, including 

the Public Printer, to submit annual reports to the Secretary of Labor on occupational accidents 

and injuries and on the agency programs established under that section.2 Section 7902(e) of title 

5 imposes similar record keeping and reporting requirements on each agency. However, there is 

no apparent mechanism for enforcement of these sections against federal agencies. These 

provisions may arguably impose general record keeping requirements with respect to occupational 

accidents and injuries on GPO, because it is a federal agency within the meaning of those 

statutory provisions. 

GPO currently maintains an accident reporting and investigation program, under which 

supervisor’s reports, investigation reports of motor vehicle accidents, and medical injury reports 

are maintained.3 By comparison, the CAA and the proposed regulations thereunder do not 

require employing offices to comply with general safety and health record keeping requirements.4 

1 2 U.S.C. 1341(c). 

2 29 U.S.C. 668(a)(5). 

3 See GPO Instruction 670.8B, “Accident Reporting System” (Jan. 9, 1987). 

4 See 142 Cong. Rec. S11021, 3d col. (Sept. 19, 1996) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Under section 215 of the CAA). 

- 101 -
Judicial 

Under present law no judicial remedies are available to GPO employees. Nor would the CAA 

provide GPO employees with a judicial remedy, but the General Counsel or an employing office 

aggrieved by a final decision of the Board following a hearing or variance proceeding may file a 

petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant to 

section 407 of the CAA.1 

1 2 U.S.C. 1341(c)(5). 

- 102 -
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 

(Chapter 71, Title 5, U.S.C. ) 

Substantive Rights 

Because GPO is expressly included within the definition of employing “agency,” GPO employees 

are directly covered under the federal service labor-management relations statute in chapter 71 of 

title 5, U.S.C.1 Thus, they have the right to choose whether to be represented by a labor 

organization for purposes of bargaining over terms and conditions of employment, they are 

protected against unfair labor practices that may be committed by either an employing office or a 

labor organization, and their representatives may avail themselves of the provisions governing the 

resolution of grievances and of disputes over the negotiability of bargaining proposals. Further, 

the regulations promulgated by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) apply to the GPO. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The Federal Labor Relations Authority, an independent agency in the executive branch, is 

responsible for administering chapter 71. The FLRA conducts elections and other proceedings to 

decide issues of representation, and it rules on whether unfair labor practices have been 

committed, and orders appropriate relief. The Authority’s General Counsel is responsible for 

investigating and prosecuting such unfair labor practice cases before the FLRA. Through the 

Federal Services Impasses Panel, the FLRA resolves disputes over the negotiability of bargaining 

proposals. 

Judicial 

Decisions of the FLRA are judicially reviewable by the U.S. Courts of Appeals. 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

Insofar as the CAA applies the rights, protections and responsibilities of chapter 71 to employing 

offices of the legislative branch, subjecting the GPO to the CAA in lieu of chapter 71 would not 

result in significant changes in the substantive rules governing labor-management relations. 

1 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(3). 

- 103 -
WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION ACT 

(WARN) 

Substantive Rights 

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) does not apply to GPO or its 

employees, nor does this legislation apply to any federal employers, except as made applicable by 

the CAA and similar law.1 The WARN Act assures employees in the private sector of notice in 

advance of office or plant closings or mass layoffs. 

GPO noted in its comments that, while not covered under WARN, GPO employees are afforded 

notice rights established under civil service and labor-management law. GPO, like GAO, applies 

RIF regulations that guarantee advance notice, ordinarily at least 60 days, to affected employees. 

However, in contrast to GAO, where applicable RIF regulations are issued by the employing 

agency, GPO is subject to the RIF regulations promulgated by OPM that apply throughout the 

executive branch.2 

Procedures 

An employee covered by OPM’s RIF regulations who has been furloughed for more than 30 days, 

separated, or demoted by a RIF may appeal to the MSPB.3 Judicial review of MSPB decisions 

may be obtained by appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.4 However, civil 

service law does not provide the right to file a civil action in case of violation of the notice 

requirements or other provisions of OPM’s RIF regulations. 

Furthermore, bargaining unit members at GPO may submit a claim under negotiated grievance 

procedures alleging a violation of notice requirements, and non-members of bargaining units may 

1 See Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act, Pub. L. No. 104-331. 

2 5 C.F.R. part 351. Provisions on RIFs, including the right to receive advance notice, applies 

under civil service statute to employees of an Executive agency. 5 U.S.C. 3501(b), 3502(d). 

However, OPM’s regulations governing RIFs, which include the guarantee of advance notice, 

apply as well to legislative and judicial branch employers that are subject to competitive 

service requirements or that “are determined by the appropriate legislative or judicial 

administrative body to be covered hereunder.” 5 C.F.R. 351.202 (a)(2). Most positions at 

GPO are in the competitive service and GPO considers itself bound by these OPM regulations. 

3 5 C.F.R. 351.901, 1201.3(a)(10). 

4 5 U.S.C. 7703. 

- 105 -
submit such a claim under GPO’s administrative grievance procedures. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

Section 205 of the CAA, which applies the rights and protections of WARN to GAO and the 

Library employees as of one year after this study is transmitted to Congress, does not apply to 

GPO.1 

EVALUATION 

In most respects, the rights to advance notice established in OPM’s RIF regulations afforded to 

GPO employees are as extensive as, or more extensive than, the rights afforded under WARN 

provisions made applicable by the CAA:2 

C The CAA guarantees notice only in the case of an “office closing” or “mass layoff.” As 

defined in applicable statutes and regulations, these terms involve an employment loss 

during a 30-day period to a significant number of employees at an employment site.3 

Under OPM’s RIF regulations, there is no minimum number of employees who must be 

affected to trigger notice requirements. If a single employee is separated, demoted, 

reassigned, or furloughed for more than 30 days, and if the cause is a lack of work, a 

shortage of funds, reorganization, or certain similar reasons, the action is a RIF and notice 

must be given.4 

C Both the CAA and the OPM RIF regulations ordinarily require 60 days advance notice. 

Both also provide for a shortened notice period in the case of unforeseeable 

circumstances, but OPM’s regulations, unlike the CAA, establish a minimum notice period 

of 30 days under any circumstances, and allow the notice period to be reduced below 60 

days only with the approval of the Director of OPM.5 

1 2 U.S.C. 1315(a)(2), (d)(2). 

2 The notice requirements under OPM’s regulations are similar, but not identical, to those under 

GAO’s RIF Order, which are discussed in the evaluation of the WARN Act in the section of 

this study on GAO. 

3 2 U.S.C 1315 (a)(1); sections 639.3(b) and (c) of Office of Compliance regulations. 

4 5 C.F.R. 351.201(a)(2), 351.801(a)(1). 

5 5 C.F.R. 351.801(b). 

- 106 -
In at least one respect, however, the substantive notice requirements in the CAA provide greater 

employee protection. In the case of an office closing or mass layoff, when not all employees are 

to be laid off on the same date, the CAA requires that notice regarding all affected employees be 

given 60 days before the date on which the first individual is laid off.1 OPM’s RIF regulations 

contain no such requirement. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Civil service law does not provide the right to file a civil action in case of violation of the rights 

under OPM’s RIF regulations. Therefore, only administrative processes are available in a case 

where a GPO employee is affected by a RIF, including where notice requirements were not met. 

Judicial 

In contrast, an employee covered by the WARN Act provisions of the CAA who alleges a 

violation may elect to file a civil action. As a jury trial should be available to private sector 

employees,2 and any party under the CAA “may demand a jury trial where a jury trial would be 

available in an action against a private defendant,”3 a covered employee may request a jury trial 

under the CAA as well. 

1 See Office of Compliance Board regulations implementing the WARN Act, section 

639.5(a)(1). 

2 See Bentley v. Arlee Home Fashions, Inc., 861 F.Supp. 65 (E.D. Ark. 1994). 

3 Section 408(c) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1408(c). 

- 107 -
UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT 

AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT OF 1994 

(USERRA) 

Substantive Rights 

GPO is covered by the substantive provisions of USERRA, which apply throughout the federal 

government, and which are described in the section of this study on GAO.1 Like other employers 

that are part of the legislative branch, GPO is authorized under USERRA to determine that it is 

“impossible or unreasonable” to reemploy a person otherwise entitled to reemployment, in which 

case OPM shall ensure that the person is offered alternative employment of like seniority, status, 

and pay at a federal executive agency.2 

Like the Library but unlike GAO, GPO is excluded from coverage by OPM’s authority to 

establish regulations implementing the provisions of USERRA, which applies only to federal 

executive agencies.3 

Procedures 

Administrative 

As was described in the section on GAO, OPM is responsible for offering placement in the 

executive branch when a legislative branch employer determines it impossible or unreasonable to 

reemploy an employee after service in a uniformed service, and any employee may invoke the 

investigation and informal compliance efforts by the Labor Department.4 However, unlike 

employees of GAO, GPO employees may not use the other federal sector administrative 

procedures under USERRA -- representation by the OSC, and adjudication of a complaint before 

the MSPB -- which apply only to “federal executive agencies.”5 

A GPO employee who suffers a personnel action appealable under general civil service law can 

1 See 38 U.S.C. 4303(4)(A)(ii), (5), 4313, 4314. 

2 See 38 U.S.C. 4314(a), (c). 

3 Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 4303(5), 4331(b)(1), OPM’s regulations apply with regard to any 

“Federal executive agency,” which does not include the Library. See also 5 C.F.R. 

353.102(2) (scope of application of OPM regulations). 

4 See 38 U.S.C. 4314(c), 4322. 

5 See 38 U.S.C. 4303(5), 4324. 

- 109 -
bring a complaint before the MSPB and allege that the action was taken in violation of USERRA. 

A member of a bargaining unit may submit a complaint under the administrative grievance 

procedure. 

Judicial 

Employees of the federal government, unlike those in the private sector, have no right to file a 

civil action under USERRA.1 

Future-Effective Changes under the CAA 

Section 206 of the CAA, which applies the rights and protections of USERRA to GAO and 

Library employees as of one year after this study is transmitted to Congress, does not apply to 

GPO.2 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

GPO is subject to the substantive provisions of the USERRA, which apply in the private sector 

and throughout the federal government, and are also made applicable under the CAA. 

Procedures 

GPO employees may appeal certain personnel actions to the MSPB, which is totally independent 

of GPO management, but only if the case fits within a category that the MSPB has statutory 

authority to hear. GPO’s administrative grievance procedure is generally available for claims that 

cannot be presented to the MSPB, but this procedure does not offer a process independent of 

GPO management. The negotiated grievance procedure is also available, provided the employee 

is a member of a bargaining unit. 

By comparison, the CAA provides administrative procedures, including the right to an 

adjudicatory hearing and appeal to the independent Office of Compliance Board, for any alleged 

USERRA violations. 

The CAA also provides the right to file a civil action, which is not available to GPO employees 

1 See 38 U.S.C. 4323.

2 2 U.S.C. 13116(a)(2)(B)-(C), (d)(2).

- 110 -
under the USERRA. Employees of private employers or state governments may also commence a 

civil action under the USERRA, or the Attorney General may commence a civil action of behalf of 

these employees.1 

1 See 38 U.S.C. 4323. 

- 111 -
EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT OF 1988 

(EPPA) 

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) of 1988 does not apply to GPO or its 

employees, nor does this legislation apply to any federal employers except as made applicable by 

the CAA and similar law.1 EPPA restricts employers’ use of lie detector tests of their employees. 

Section 204 of the CAA, which applies rights and protections of the EPPA to GAO and 

Library employees as of one year after this study is transmitted to Congress, does not apply to 

GPO.2 

EVALUATION 

No rights and protections of EPPA are applicable to GPO and its employees. By comparison, 

the CAA makes the rights and protections of the EPPA applicable to covered employees of the 

legislative branch and provides administrative and judicial procedures by which employees 

may obtain redress in case of a violation. 

1 See Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act, Pub .L. No. 104-331, section 414. 

2 2 U.S.C. 1314(a)(2), (d)(2). 

- 113 -
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 

(Public Access Provisions) 

Substantive Rights 

Titles II and III of the ADA, which relate to public access to public services and public 

accommodations,1 are applicable in their entirety to certain congressional instrumentalities, 

including GPO, under section 509 of the ADA.2 The substantive provisions are described in the 

section of this report on GAO. 

Under ADA titles II and III, the Attorney General has promulgated implementing regulations for 

matters other than public transportation,3 and the Secretary of Transportation has promulgated 

regulations for public transportation matters.4 GPO has stated that it is not subject to these 

regulations. 

Procedures 

Section 509(2) of the ADA requires certain instrumentalities, including GPO, to “establish 

remedies and procedures to be utilized with respect to the rights and protections” of the ADA 

made applicable to GPO.5 GPO has stated that it has not established remedies and procedures for 

visitors, guests, or patrons who may allege a violation of the public access provisions. 

Furthermore, the ADA public access provisions now in effect do not provide judicial processes in 

case of a complaint against GPO. 

Future-Effective Provision Under the CAA 

Section 509(6) of the ADA makes the remedies and procedures of section 717 of title VII 

available to visitors, guests, and patrons of GPO, as well as GAO and the Library, who wish to 

pursue claims under the public access provisions of the ADA, effective one year after this study is 

transmitted to Congress. The administrative and judicial procedures to be provided under section 

509(6) are described in the portion of this study on GAO. 

1 Sections 201-245 and 301-309 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12141-12165, 12181-12189. 

2 42 U.S.C. 12209(1).

3 See 42 U.S.C. 12134, 12186(b); 28 C.F.R. part 36.

4 See 42 U.S.C. 12143, 12149, 12164, 12186; 49 C.F.R. part 37.

5 42 U.S.C. 12209(2).

- 115 -
EVALUATION 

The evaluation in the section of this study on GAO applies as well for GPO. In general terms, 

section 509(6) establishes a process under which a visitor, guest, or patron may pursue a 

complaint individually through an administrative complaints process administered by the agency 

and then, if not satisfied, may file a civil action in district court. 

The CAA does not provide a visitor, guest, or patron of GPO the right to file a civil action or to 

pursue an administrative remedy on his or her own. Instead, the CAA adopts an enforcementbased process. An individual may file a charge with the General Counsel of the Office of 

Compliance, who investigates and may pursue an administrative complaint on the individual’s 

behalf. 

- 116 -
CONCLUSIONS 

Substantive Rights 

GPO employees currently are granted substantive rights under most CAA laws, and, in addition, 

enjoy many of the substantive civil service protections that apply generally in the executive 

branch. Consequently, employees at the instrumentality have certain rights and protections 

beyond those afforded legislative branch employees covered by the CAA. However, the CAA 

does not extend substantive rights under EPPA and the WARN Act to GPO, as it does to GAO 

and the Library. 

Furthermore, the terms of the Kiess Act, which state that GPO may grant time off from duty 

instead of overtime pay for overtime work to an employee paid on an annual basis, appear 

inconsistent with the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which require that covered 

employees be paid for all hours over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than one-and-one-half 

times the employee’s regular rate of pay. 

Administrative Processes 

Administrative procedures administered by GPO, by executive branch agencies, or established 

under collective bargaining agreements are available to resolve GPO employees’ complaints and 

grievances on a wide range of subjects. GPO employees can submit claims and appeals to 

executive branch agencies (EEOC, MSPB, OPM) in a number of areas — including discrimination 

complaints, appealable adverse actions and performance-based actions, and FLSA disputes. This 

protection is in some respects broader in scope than the CAA, which allows appeals to the Office 

of Compliance Board only under the specific laws covered by the Act. One exception is that, 

under the ADA as amended by the CAA, claims of discrimination on the basis of disability may 

not be appealed administratively outside of GPO.1 

GPO employees are also afforded the benefit of investigatory, enforcement, and oversight 

authorities of the EEOC and the Special Counsel in various subject areas, as well as the 

investigatory functions of GPO’s EEO Service, which significantly exceed the investigation, 

enforcement, and oversight provided under the CAA. However, GPO is not subject to the 

investigatory or enforcement authority of any outside agency in the occupational safety and health 

area. 

Judicial Processes and Relief 

Judicial procedures available to GPO employees are generally comparable to rights available to 

covered Congressional employees under the CAA, but certain gaps remain. In addition to EPPA 

and WARN, which do not apply at GPO at all, the substantive rights under FMLA and USERRA 

apply but may not be enforced by civil action. Furthermore, under certain applicable laws the 

1 Section 509(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12209(5), as added by section 201(c)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. 

- 117 -
right to jury trial and to recover certain kinds of relief are not available to GAO employees. For 

example, GAO employees, like executive branch employees, arguably may not request a jury trial 

in cases under the ADEA, EPA, or FLSA, and may not recover compensatory damages under 42 

U.S.C. 1981 or liquidated damages under the ADEA. 

Independent Process for Issuing Substantive Regulations 

GPO is generally subject to the same government-wide regulations as are employing agencies in 

the executive branch. 

The study also identified several issues regarding GPO that warrant further discussion: 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT (OSHA) 

Although GPO must establish and maintain a comprehensive occupational safety and health 

program consistent with the OSHA standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, it is not 

now subject to inspection or enforcement by any outside agency. One year after this study is 

transmitted to Congress, inspection and enforcement procedures under section 220 of the CAA 

will become effective for GAO and the Library. However, GPO is not included under the 

coverage of this section. 

A union of GPO employees suggested that this study should investigate whether OSHA 

enforcement responsibilities should apply to GPO, and questioned whether GPO should be 

excluded from the OSHA provisions of the CAA. However, GPO has commented that, inasmuch 

as GPO’s performance and compliance record has been found in a 1992 GAO report to be better 

than the average federal or private operation, it is unnecessary to extend additional OSHA 

statutory coverage to the agency at this time. GPO further explained that any additional coverage 

would require limited staff to devote time and energy to administrative requirements, thereby 

likely reducing GPO’s ability to fully protect its employees. 

EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT (EPPA)

WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION ACT (WARN)

UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT

(USERRA)

The rights and protections of the EPPA and WARN do not apply to GPO employees. Employees 

at GPO are granted substantive rights under USERRA, but may neither enforce those rights 

through a claim to the Special Counsel or the MSPB, as executive branch employees can, nor sue 

in district court, as private sector employees can. A union of GPO employees suggested that this 

study should investigate whether GPO should be included under CAA provisions with respect to 

these laws. 

GPO commented that it has no requirement for lie detector tests and does not anticipate the need 

for their future use for employment purposes, and therefore sees no benefit from including the 

- 118 -
agency under the EPPA. However, extending the EPPA provisions of the CAA to cover GPO 

would impose no burden or inconvenience so long as the agency sees no need for the use of lie 

detector tests for employment purposes, but could protect employees should the agency ever 

change its policy and seek to use such tests. On the other hand, GPO has no objection to being 

included in the USERRA provisions. 

GPO also stated that it is not averse to being covered by the provisions of the WARN Act, but 

believes that extending the legislation to GPO would add no benefit to employees and merely 

duplicate or conflict with existing rights and protections under OPM’s government-wide RIF 

regulations, which apply to GPO, and under GPO’s collective-bargaining obligations. It should 

be noted, however, that application of the WARN Act provisions of the CAA would entitle GPO 

employees to seek a remedy through civil action and to request a jury trial. These district court 

remedies would not otherwise be available to GPO employees given legally insufficient notice of a 

layoff. 

- 119 -
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

OVERVIEW 

The Library of Congress (Library), originally established to purchase books for the use of 

Congress, is today the national library. Under its aegis are the Congressional Research Service 

(CRS), which provides nonpartisan research, analysis, and information to Congress, and the 

Office of the Register of Copyrights, which receives and registers copyrightable works. The 

Librarian of Congress, who serves as head of the agency, is appointed by the President with the 

advice and consent of the Senate. 

Although the Library is part of the legislative branch, Library employees enjoy general civil 

service protections in a number of areas.1 Additionally, Library employees now enjoy rights and 

protections under most of the eleven laws that are the subject of this study, and principal 

remaining gaps in coverage -- e.g., in the areas of occupational safety and health, notification of 

office closings and mass layoffs, and polygraph protection -- will be filled when certain CAA 

provisions become effective at the Library one year after this study is transmitted to Congress. 

With respect to independent administrative mechanisms, the Library is not subject to the 

jurisdiction of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB), or the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), as are executive branch 

agencies and GPO; nor does the Library have its own personnel appeals board as does GAO. 

Thus, Library employees’ complaints of discrimination or challenges to adverse actions are not 

subject to administrative appeal beyond the final decision of the Librarian. In the labormanagement area, however, the Library, like GPO, is subject to regulation by the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority (FLRA). 

The Library has established several internal administrative mechanisms to hear and resolve 

employee grievances. Over 70 percent of the Library employees are covered by collective 

bargaining agreements and are eligible to use the negotiated grievance procedures provided in 

For example, the Library is covered under certain government-wide civil service provisions 

including classification and grading of positions, premium pay, and flexible work schedules, 

and under a specific mandate that Library employees be appointed solely with reference to 

fitness. See 2 U.S.C. 140; 5 U.S.C. 5102(a)(1)(B), 5541(1)(D), 6121(1). Regulations issued 

by the Librarian (Library of Congress Regulations, or LCRs) and collective bargaining 

agreements establish requirements in such areas as merit hiring, retention and promotion, 

performance evaluation, and reduction in force. See, e.g., LCR 2013 and 2017 series 

(performance evaluations, quality increases and incentive awards); LCR 2021-2 (reductions in 

force); Collective Bargaining Agreements between the Library and AFSCME Local 2477, 

AFSCME Local 2910, and Congressional Research Employees Assoc., IFPTE Local 75. 

- 121 -

1 
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

Substantive Rights 

The Library, like GAO and GPO, is covered under section 717 of Title VII, section 15 of the 

ADEA, the EPA, and section 509 of the ADA,1 and is not subject to section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act.2 The substantive rights and protections afforded Library employees under 

these laws therefore parallel those afforded GAO and GPO employees. 

Unlike either GAO or GPO, the Library is not included under the prohibition in applicable civil 

service statutes against prohibited personnel practices. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Unlike the situation at either GAO or GPO, applicable statutes authorize the Librarian to exercise 

the authorities of the EEOC with respect to employment at the Library.3 Consequently, the 

Librarian has sole administrative responsibility for assuring that employment at the Library is free 

from discrimination, and is subject to neither the requirements prescribed by the EEOC for agency 

anti-discrimination programs, nor to the EEOC’s authority to hear appeals from the Library’s 

decisions on discrimination complaints.4 

The Library Discrimination Complaint Process. Library regulations establish an Equal 

Employment Opportunity Complaints Office (EEOCO) to administer a process for resolving 

1 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. 633a (ADEA); 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1)(A)(v), 206(d) 

(EPA); 42 U.S.C. 12209 (ADA). 

2 The Library has advised that section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791(b), applies 

to the executive branch, and, as an agency in the legislative branch, it is not included. 

3 Title VII and the ADEA both provide that “authorities granted in this subsection to the 

[EEOC] shall be exercised by the Librarian of Congress.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(b); 29 U.S.C. 

633a(b). The ADA also provides for implementation by the Librarian. 42 U.S.C. 12209(2), 

(5). The FLSA, of which the EPA is a part, is ordinarily implemented by the Secretary of 

Labor, but, under the authority of 29 U.S.C. 204(f), the Secretary in 1975 entered into an 

agreement with the Librarian under which the Librarian makes necessary investigations and 

handles complaints from Library employees. The Secretary’s functions with respect to the 

EPA were transferred to the EEOC by Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. appendix. 

4 See 29 C.F.R. 1614.103(d)(3) (EEOC regulations). 

- 123 -
complaints against the Library.1 Under the individual complaints process, an employee must

request counseling within 20 workdays after the allegedly unlawful conduct. The EEOCO

provides counseling, conducts an inquiry, and may refer the matter to the appropriate Library

officer. 

If the matter is not resolved at this early stage, the employee may file a complaint with the

EEOCO Assistant Chief, who again attempts to resolve the issues and, if the issues are still not

resolved, the EEOCO conducts an investigation and the Assistant Chief decides the merits and

makes a recommendation to the Chief of the EEOCO for decision. If the employee complainant,

the staff member charged with having discriminated,2 or both, remain unsatisfied, they may ask for

reconsideration and/or a hearing. The Library then provides a hearing officer with the

investigative file, and after the hearing (which is considered "an adjunct" of the investigation), the

hearing officer renders an advisory opinion. After receiving the hearing officer's advisory opinion,

the Librarian makes the final agency decision. The procedure for class complaints is similar, but

allows longer periods for filing such complaints with the EEOCO. 

The Dispute Resolution Center. The Library also has a Dispute Resolution Center, which offers

mediation and other dispute resolution services to both bargaining unit members and

nonmembers. At any time during the dispute resolution process, a "disputant" may opt out of the

dispute resolution process and file an EEO complaint.

The Library Negotiated Grievance Procedures. Members of bargaining units may also grieve

claims of unlawful discrimination under the negotiated grievance procedures established under

collective bargaining agreements.

Judicial

Civil Action. Library employees, like those at GPO, have the right to file a civil action to the full

extent provided under the anti-discrimination laws. A Library employee may file a civil action

after having filed a complaint and after having reached either of two stages in the administrative

processing of the complaint: (i) after 180 days from filing a complaint in the Library process if

there has been no final agency decision; or (ii) within 90 days of receipt of a final agency decision

from the Librarian.3 In the case of an EPA complaint, the employee may file a civil action

1 The procedures apply, by their terms, to complaints under Title VII, the ADEA, and the 

ADA. The Library’s regulations establishing its procedures for discrimination complaints 

make no reference to actions under the EPA. 

2 LCR 2010-3.1, sections 9 and 10, make "the staff member charged" a party to the complaint 

and hearing process. There is no similar provision in EEOC regulations, 29 C.F.R. part 1614. 

3 LCR 2010-2 at 2 (February 23, 1973) and LCR 2010-3.2, section 17 (April 20, 1983) each 

specify a deadline for filing a civil action of no later than 30 days after receipt of notice of final 

(continued...) 

- 124 -
regardless of whether he or she has pursued any administrative complaint processing.1 

As explained in the sections on GAO and GPO, a jury trial may be requested in civil actions under 

Title VII or the ADA if the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, but a jury trial is not available 

in an EPA action, and probably not in an ADEA action, brought against a federal agency. Library 

employees, like GAO and GPO employees, may not be able to bring a civil action in case of 

retaliation for exercising ADEA or ADA rights. However, as retaliation is forbidden under 

applicable Library regulations,2 Library employees may seek protection through available 

administrative procedures. 

Relief 

The relief available in a discrimination case brought by a Library employee is the same as for a 

GAO or GPO employee, and is generally the same as is available to other legislative branch 

employees covered under the CAA. In appropriate cases, this may include reinstatement or 

hiring, with or without back pay, or other injunctive relief.3 In addition, in a case under Title VII 

or the ADA, compensatory damages may also be available for intentional discrimination,4 and 

in a case under the EPA, double damages may be available as liquidated damages, unless the 

3 (...continued) 

action. That time limitation was expanded to 90 days in the 1991 Amendments to Title VII. 

Pub. L. No. 102-166, section 114(1). 

1 29 U.S.C. 216(b) (right to file a civil action under the FLSA, of which the EPA is a part); 29 

C.F.R. 1614.409 (EEOC regulations). 

2 See LCR 2010-3.2, section 9. 

3 In case of a violation of Title VII or the ADA, the following relief may be available to a 

Library employee: Enjoining unlawful employment practices, ordering that such 

affirmative steps be taken as may be appropriate, including reinstatement or hiring, with or 

without back pay, or any other equitable relief as may be deemed appropriate. Interest 

may be awarded to compensate for delay in payment. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g); 42 U.S.C. 

2000e-16(d); 42 U.S.C. 12209(5). In case of a violation of the ADEA, the relief available to a 

Library employee is such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of the ADEA. 

29 U.S.C. 633a(c). In case of a violation of the EPA, a Library employee may recover 

any amounts withheld from an employee in violation of EPA requirements. 29 U.S.C. 

216(b). 

4 42 U.S.C. 1981a affords compensatory damages for intentional discrimination in violation 

of Title VII or the ADA. In such a case, compensatory damages for future pecuniary 

losses, emotional pain and suffering, and other nonpecuniary losses are capped at no more 

than $300,000. 

- 125 -
employer shows that its act or omission was in good faith.1 

1 See 29 U.S.C. 206(d)(3), 216(b), 260. 

- 126 -
these agreements. Grievances that cannot be resolved informally may be submitted to binding 

arbitration, with appeal to the FLRA, or, if the objection is to an appealable adverse action or 

performance-based action, judicial review may be obtained in the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit.1 

The Library has also established a discrimination complaints process available for the 

discrimination complaints of both members and non-members of bargaining units, and 

administrative grievance procedures under which non-members of bargaining units may present 

other kinds of grievances to Library management and may appeal from adverse actions.2 These 

procedures provide for the presentation of grievances and appeals for consideration by 

management, the opportunity for a hearing before an independent hearing officer, and a final, 

non-appealable decision by the Library. In addition, the Library has recently established a Dispute 

Resolution Center to administer mediation and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to 

resolve discrimination complaints, grievances, and certain other kinds of disputes, before resorting 

to the more formal complaints and grievances procedures.3 The processes administered by the 

Dispute Center were established after collective bargaining and are available to both bargaining 

unit members and non-members. 

1 See generally, 5 U.S.C. 7121-7122, 7703. 

2 See LCR 2020-1, “Grievances, Adverse Actions, Appeals: Policy and General Provisions” 

(April 10, 1990); LCR 2020-2, “Policy and Procedures for Resolving Grievances” (March 1, 

1984); LCR 2020-3, “Policies and Procedures Governing Adverse Actions” (March 1, 1984); 

LCR 2020-4, “Hearing Procedures” (March 1, 1984). 

3 See LCR 2020-7, “Policy and Procedures for Using the Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Process to Resolve Disputes” (June 16, 1995). 

- 122 -
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights and Protections 

At the Library, as at GPO and GAO, the basic prohibitions against discrimination under the antidiscrimination laws (Title VII, ADEA, ADA and EPA) are generally the same as those afforded 

other federal sector employees, those in the private sector, and other legislative branch employees 

covered by the CAA. 

Procedures 

The administrative and judicial procedures available to Library employees with discrimination 

complaints are generally similar to those available to employees of GAO, GPO, and the executive 

branch, except that Library employees have no right of administrative appeal from the final 

decision of the employing agency. 

Administrative 

The administrative procedures applied by the Library are generally similar to those at GPO and 

GAO and in the executive branch. The Library plays the predominant role in administering the 

initial counseling, mediation, investigation, and investigative hearing, and the final decision is 

made by the Librarian. There is no administrative appeal from the Librarian’s final decision. By 

contrast, legislative branch employees covered by the CAA have the right to counseling, 

mediation, and adjudicatory procedures administered by the independent Office of Compliance, 

and may appeal to the independent Office of Compliance Board. 

The discrimination complaints procedure at the Library includes a mechanism for the investigation 

of individual complaints, conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Office. 

Unlike at the GAO, GPO, and executive branch agencies, however, no independent administrative 

authority has the power to take enforcement action at the Library by conducting investigations 

without a charge or by seeking corrective action, stays, or disciplinary action. Under the CAA, 

there is no investigatory or prosecutorial authority in discrimination cases. 

Judicial 

Employees at the Library have the same right as executive branch employees to file a civil action 

under anti-discrimination laws at various times after filing an administrative complaint, or, in the 

case of an ADEA or EPA claim, as an alternative to filing an administrative complaint. After 

exhausting their administrative remedies, Library employees retain the right to file a civil action in 

federal district court and have a trial de novo. A jury trial is available in cases under Title VII and 

the ADA, but probably not under the ADEA and EPA. 

- 127 -
For private sector employees and covered legislative branch employees under the CAA, the right 

to file a civil action and obtain a jury trial is generally available in discrimination cases. However, 

under the CAA, a covered employee who elects to pursue an administrative, rather than judicial, 

complaint may obtain only appellate judicial review in the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit, after exhausting administrative remedies. 

Library employees have access to federal district court in claims of retaliation under Title VII and 

EPA, but the law is uncertain with respect to ADEA and ADA violations. By comparison, 

covered legislative branch employees are protected by section 207 of the CAA, which prohibits 

retaliation for exercise of rights with respect to any CAA law, including the anti-discrimination 

laws; and private sector employees are protected under specific anti-retaliation provisions in these 

laws. 

Relief 

Most kinds of relief available for discrimination violations are the same for Library employees as 

for other legislative branch employees covered under the CAA, as well as executive branch and 

private sector employees. However, two kinds of damages are available to private sector 

employees and under the CAA that are not available to Library employees: (a) compensatory 

damages for discrimination involving race, ancestry, and ethnicity, under 42 U.S.C. 1981; and (b) 

liquidated damages in the case of a willful violation of the ADEA, in an amount equal to the 

amount owing as a result of the violation. 

In addition, certain punitive damages and penalties are available against private sector employers 

in Title VII and ADA cases that are not available against federal government employers, including 

employing offices under the CAA, in the executive branch, and the Library. 

Timeliness in Resolving Discrimination Complaints 

Employee representatives — and the Library itself — expressed concern about the slowness of 

discrimination complaint processing at the Library. The Library reported that, in Fiscal Year 

1993, the latest year for which it has compiled data, the average time that formal complaint cases 

remained open was 1,231 days. The time to complete investigations was 618 days. In the Dispute 

Resolution Center program, disputes remained in the process for an average of 449 days. 

- 128 -
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993 

(FMLA) 

Substantive Rights 

The Library, like both GAO and GPO, is covered by the civil service provisions of the FMLA1 

and by OPM’s FMLA regulations,2 which are described in the section of this study on GAO. The 

Library has also issued a regulation that implements the rights and procedures under the statute.3 

Procedures 

The FMLA civil service provisions do not provide any administrative or judicial processes by 

which employees may seek redress for violations. Therefore, employees who believe their rights 

have been violated must rely on the various remedial provisions available generally for 

employment-related disputes in the federal government. Several administrative and judicial 

avenues are available to Library employees. 

Administrative and Negotiated Grievance Procedures. Library employees may use the Library’s 

dispute resolution process, referred to above. Furthermore, a member of a bargaining unit at the 

Library can seek resolution of a claim under the negotiated grievance procedure, and a 

non-member may proceed under the administrative grievance or appeals procedures established by 

the Library. 

OPM’s General Claims Settlement Process. A Library employee can also seek redress by 

applying to OPM under its statutory responsibility to receive and settle federal employees’ claims 

against the government.4 

1 5 U.S.C. 6381-6387, added by Pub. L. No. 103-3, title II, 107 Stat. 19 (Feb. 5, 1993). 

Coverage of the FMLA civil service provisions includes, among others, most employees of 

agencies headed by Presidential appointees. See 5 U.S.C. 2105(a)(1)(A), (D), 6301(2)(A), 

6381(1)(A). The Librarian of Congress is appointed by the President. 

2 5 C.F.R. 630.1201-630.1211 (regulations promulgated by OPM). 

3 LCR 2015-21, “Family and Medical Leave” (May 1996). 

4 The authority to settle claims against the government has historically been assigned to GAO 

under 31 U.S.C. 3702. However, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, 

transferred this claims settlement authority to OMB as of June 30, 1996, subject to delegation. 

Sec. 211, Pub. L. No. 104-53, 109 Stat. 535-536 (1995), set out at 31 U.S.C. 501 note. 

(continued...) 

- 129 -
Judicial 

In appropriate cases, a Library employee, like a GAO employee, may also bring suit in the Court 

of Federal Claims for money owed by the government as a result of an FMLA violation, and could 

seek restoration to position and correction of records, if warranted, as an incident to a monetary 

judgment. If the claim does not exceed $10,000, the employee can sue in federal district court.1 

Relief 

Since the FMLA civil service provisions do not specify what relief would be available in case of a 

violation, an aggrieved employee must rely on other laws, or on general legal principles, to obtain 

relief. For example, if an employee is demoted or fired or denied restoration, the employee can 

claim compensation due under the Back Pay Act.2 The employee may also seek to recover the 

amount of benefits guaranteed by the FMLA that are unlawfully denied and are therefore due and 

owing from the government. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

The CAA removes the Library, like GAO, from the civil service version of the FMLA in title 5 of 

the U.S. Code and places it under the private sector FMLA codified in title 29 of the U.S. Code.3 

The specific differences between the FMLA provisions in civil service law and the FMLA 

provisions applicable to the private sector are described in detail in the section of this study on 

GAO. 

4 (...continued) 

OMB has delegated the authority to settle employee claims to OPM. 

1 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), 1491(a). 

2 5 U.S.C. 5596. 

3 Section 202(c) and (e)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1312(c), (e)(1). 

- 130 -
EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

The Library is now covered by the same FMLA civil service laws and regulations as GAO, and is 

subject to the same CAA provision that will cause the private sector FMLA to apply in the future. 

The evaluation for GAO therefore applies in nearly all respects for the Library as well. That is, all 

of the relevant statutory programs provide the same basic entitlement — up to 12 weeks of 

job-protected leave in a 12-month period for family and medial purposes — with similar 

differences in eligibility criteria and substantive rights. 

The civil service FMLA provisions afford greater substantive rights to employees than the private 

sector provisions, which are applicable under the CAA, but the civil service version of the FMLA 

does not provide administrative or judicial procedures. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The Library’s administrative dispute resolution, grievance, appeal, and hearing processes are 

generally available, but these do not offer a process external to Library management. The 

negotiated grievance procedure with neutral arbitration is available to members of a bargaining 

unit. The provisions of the CAA that apply to the Library will not change this situation because 

the private sector FMLA provisions do not afford administrative remedies. 

In comparison, the CAA provides administrative procedures, including the right to an 

adjudicatory hearing and appeal to the independent Office of Compliance Board, for a covered 

employee who alleges any FMLA violation. 

Judicial 

As discussed in the context of GAO, the civil service remedies and relief available under civil 

service law in a case of an FMLA violation are generally less protective of employee rights than 

those under the CAA and under private sector law. 

- 131 -
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 

(FLSA) 

Substantive Rights 

Statutes 

Employees of the Library have been covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) since 

the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974.1 Thus, nonexempt employees 

must be paid a minimum wage rate, currently $4.75 per hour, and are entitled to overtime 

compensation, at a rate of at least time and one-half, for work in excess of 40 hours in a 

workweek. (Nonexempt employees are those who do not fall within one of the three statutory 

exemptions -- executive, administrative, or professional.) 

In addition, since before 1974, most Library employees generally come under the premium pay 

provisions of the civil service laws, which establish overtime rates and authorize compensatory 

time off.2 These statutory provisions also apply to GAO, and are described in the section of this 

study on GAO. 

Regulations 

Under a 1975 Memorandum with the Department of Labor, noted below, the Library agreed to 

follow the regulations and interpretations of the Wage and Hour Division in administering the 

application of the FLSA to its employees. 

The Library is not subject to OPM’s regulations implementing the overtime and compensatory 

time off provisions of the civil service laws, and the instrumentality has issued its own regulations 

for this purpose. 3 Library of Congress Regulation (LCR) 2013-11 (May 9, 1994) generally 

covers (with the exception of prevailing wage employees) the Library staff members, including 

employees who are otherwise exempt under the FLSA as well as employee are nonexempt under 

1 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(A)(v), added by section 6(a) of Pub. L. No. 93-259, 88 Stat. 58 (April 8, 

1974). 

2 5 U.S.C. 5541(2)(C). See 5 U.S.C. 5542-5543. 

3 OPM, pursuant to its authority to promulgate regulations implementing the premium pay 

provisions of the civil service laws, title 5, issued the regulations found in 5 C.F.R. part 550, 

which includes regulations implementing the overtime and compensatory time off provisions of 

sections 5542 and 5543, of title 5, U.S.C. However, these overtime and compensatory time off 

regulations do not apply to the Library. See 5 C.F.R. 550.101(a)(1), which states that the subpart 

pertaining to premium pay applies “to each employee in or under an Executive agency, as defined 

in 5 U.S.C. 105.” The Library is not an “Executive agency” under 5 U.S.C. 105. 

- 133 -
the FLSA. This regulation implements the statutory requirement that overtime work must be 

ordered or approved; its sets forth both the manner in which overtime pay is calculated and the 

conditions under which overtime is to be paid; and it sets forth conditions under which 

compensatory time off may be given in lieu of overtime pay. 

The Library issued LCR 2013-14 (May 9, 1994) to implement the civil service law covering 

employees who are entitled to be paid on the basis of a prevailing wage. In addition to 

establishing the rules for determining eligibility, the rates of pay, promotions, and premium pay for 

night shift work and holidays, the regulations provide that overtime is to be paid for ordered or 

approved work at a rate of one and one-half times the rate of an employee s basic pay. In 

addition, an employee may request, and the supervisor in his or her discretion may grant, 

compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay.1 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The 1974 FLSA Amendments authorized the Secretary of Labor and the Librarian of the 

Congress to enter into an enforcement agreement to provide for carrying out the Secretary s 

functions with respect to individuals employed in the Library. 2 A Memorandum of Agreement 

was executed in July 1975 setting forth the mutual responsibilities of both agencies. The 

Memorandum, among other things, provided that the Library will follow the published regulations 

and interpretations of the Wage and Hour Division in administering the FLSA; the Library will 

conduct internal investigations to resolve compliance problems; the Wage and Hour Division will 

refer complaints from Library employees to the Library for resolution; and the Library will submit 

an annual report of its activities to the Wage and Hour Division. 

The Library has not promulgated FLSA-specific regulations for investigating and processing 

FLSA claims. However, several avenues of review are available. As described above, Library 

employees may use the agency’s dispute resolution process. Furthermore, bargaining unit 

members may use negotiated grievance and binding arbitration procedures, and non-members of 

bargaining units may use the Library’s administrative grievance and hearing procedures leading to 

a final decision by the Library. 

Finally, insofar as FLSA claims constitute a monetary claim against the Federal government, an 

employee not satisfied with a determination of the Librarian may file a claim with OPM. 3 

1 The Library has advised that it plans to review its pay regulations and revise them if necessary. 

2 29 U.S.C. 204(f), added by section 7(f) of Pub. L. No. 93-259, 88 Stat. 58 (April 8, 1974). 

3 The authority to settle claims against the Government has historically been assigned to the GAO 

(continued...) 

- 134 -
However, while OPM has statutory authority to administer the FLSA with respect to most federal 

agencies, including GAO and GPO, its authority does not extend to the Library.1 

Judicial 

An action to recover any unpaid compensation owed under the FLSA may be brought in any 

court of competent jurisdiction.2 FLSA actions by federal employees may be brought, under the 

Tucker Act, in the Court of Federal Claims or, if the amount claimed does not exceed $10,000, in 

an appropriate federal district court.3 

Relief 

Under the FLSA, Library employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime compensation. 

Additionally, liquidated damages are available, in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid 

minimum wages or unpaid compensation, except that a court has discretion to reduce or dispense 

with the award of liquidated damages if the employer shows that the violation was in good faith 

and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a 

violation. For a violation of the FLSA prohibition against retaliation, legal or equitable relief may 

available, including employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages, and an 

additional amount of liquidated damages.4 

The FLSA also provides that the court shall allow reasonable attorneys fees.5 

3 (...continued) 

under 31 U.S.C. 3702. However, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, transferred 

this claims settlement authority to OMB as of June 30, 1996, subject to delegation. Pub. L. No. 

104-53, 211, 109 Stat. 535-536 (1995), set out at 31 U.S.C. 501 note. OMB has delegated the 

authority to settle employee claims to OPM. 

1 See 29 U.S.C. 204(f); 5 C.F.R. 551.101(a). Under this authority with respect to other federal 

agencies, for example, OPM accepts employees’ claims of violation, conducts investigations, 

makes determinations of whether employees are exempt or non-exempt, and issues compliance 

orders against employing agencies. 

2 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

3 See 28 U.S.C. 1346(a), 1491. 

4 29 U.S.C. 216(b), 260. 

5 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

- 135 -
EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

The Library is subject to the same substantive provisions of the FLSA governing minimum wage, 

overtime compensation, and child labor as GAO, GPO, and other agencies in the federal sector, as 

well as employers in the private sector, and employing legislative offices under the CAA. 

Furthermore, like GAO, the Library is covered by certain civil service statutes that supplement, 

and also provide exceptions to, the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. Thus, while the civil 

service laws entitle Library employees to overtime for authorized work in excess of 8 hours a day, 

in addition to work in excess of 40 hours a week, the FLSA requires overtime for nonexempt 

employees (but not for exempt employees) for work only in excess of the 40 hour workweek (and 

without regard to whether the work was actually “authorized”). Certain employees are entitled to 

the benefit of the 8-hour day overtime premium even in instances where their workweek does not 

exceed 40 hours. Similarly, FLSA exempt employees are entitled to overtime for authorized work 

in excess of a 40 hour workweek. Furthermore, as described in the section of this study on GAO, 

the civil service laws that cover the Library frequently authorize the employer to satisfy overtime 

obligations by allowing compensatory time off. In contrast, the FLSA generally does not permit 

such time off for nonexempt employees. Similarly, compensatory time off is generally unavailable 

under the CAA, although it can be required under limited circumstances for employees whose 

schedules depend directly on the schedule of the House or Senate. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Pay disputes, including overtime matters under both the FLSA and the civil service laws, are 

resolved administratively through the Library’s general grievance and dispute resolution 

processes. Employees can also apply to OPM for satisfaction of monetary claims. In contrast, 

the CAA generally does not authorize an internal administrative process for resolving FLSA 

disputes, but instead authorizes counseling, mediation, and formal adjudication, that is 

administered by the Office of Compliance (or, in the alternative, resort to district court). 

Judicial Processes 

Library employees may file a civil action under the FLSA regardless of whether the employee 

pursued any administrative complaint processing. In contrast, under the CAA, a covered 

employee can file a civil action only after pursuing his or her claim through the counseling and 

mediation stages, plus an additional waiting period of 30 days. 

Jury trials are ordinarily not available against the federal government without express statutory 

- 136 -
authority, 1 and therefore, are probably not available in FLSA cases against the Library. 

However, since a jury trial is available in appropriate FLSA cases in the private sector, the right is 

available to the same extent in FLSA cases under the CAA.2 

Relief 

The unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, additional liquidated damages, and 

legal or equitable relief for retaliation, as provided for in the FLSA, are available for a violation by 

the Library. This is the same relief as is available elsewhere in the federal sector, in the private 

sector, or under the CAA. 

1 See generally, Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981). 

2 Section 408(c) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1408(c). 

- 137 -
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 

(OSHA) 

Substantive Rights 

The Library is currently covered by section 19 of OSHA,1 as well as the related provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 7902, which require the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive occupational 

safety and health program. These provisions are the same as those applicable to GAO, and the 

requirements of these provisions are described in the GAO portion of this study. 

Although the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor are not binding on the Library, 

the applicable statutes require that the Library’s OSHA program be consistent with the standards 

promulgated by the Secretary. The Library regulations and collective bargaining agreements that 

establish the Safety and Environmental Health Programs of the Library, as well as the Library of 

Congress Safety and Health Committee, cite the Secretary’s standards as the authority and note 

the importance of conforming with them.2 

Procedures 

Administrative

Complaint procedures. The Library’s employee complaint procedures to report unsafe

conditions are currently in draft form, but Library officials have indicated that the procedures in

the draft regulation are to be followed until final instructions are provided.3 Employees are

instructed to report unsafe conditions to their supervisor, or, if appropriate, to Safety Services. 

(Employees reporting unsafe conditions to Safety Services may remain anonymous.) If the

appropriate Library officials determine that an unsafe or unhealthful working condition cannot be

eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level within 30 days, a hazard abatement plan will be

developed. This plan will explain the circumstances of the delay in abatement, and provide a

proposed timetable for the abatement, and a summary of steps being taken in the interim to

1 29 U.S.C. 668. 

2 See LCR 1817-1, “Safety and Environmental Health Programs of the Library of Congress” 

(September 1994), and LCR 218-18, “Library of Congress Safety and Health Committee” 

(1995) (Draft) (both noting the importance of conforming with Executive Order 12196 and 

title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1960). 

3 See LCR 1817-6, “Hazard Abatement Program to Ensure Safe Conditions for Library 

Employees” (September 1994) (Draft). 

- 139 -
protect employees. A copy of the plan will be sent to the Joint Labor-Management Health and 

Safety Committee. Non-bargaining employees may also file safety and health grievances under 

the Library dispute resolution process,1 while bargaining unit employees may use the negotiated 

grievance procedure. 

Compliance mechanisms. The Library of Congress Safety and Health Committee was 

established to monitor and assist in safety and health programs.2 The committee, which consists 

of equal representation of labor and management, assists Library management in improving 

policies, conditions, and practices that have potential impact on employee/workplace safety and 

health. In addition, a Hazard Abatement Program was established to monitor and track unsafe 

conditions until identified problems are corrected.3 

Safety and occupational health inspections are conducted annually by the Safety Services staff 

and/or members of the Joint Labor-Management Advisory Committee. Situations that involve 

imminent danger must be brought to the immediate attention of supervisors or other persons with 

authority to correct the problem and to the service unit head for necessary action. Written 

inspection reports are then forwarded to the inspecting office within 30 days of the inspection 

report date. Written reports are maintained on file with Safety Services for five years. In 

addition, unsafe conditions are recorded in the Hazard Abatement Program database, and, in cases 

where personnel are exposed to unsafe or unhealthful working conditions, a Hazard Notice must 

be posted in the immediate vicinity. Safety Service’s approval is required for all interim protective 

measures for unsafe conditions requiring more than 60 days to correct. 

Judicial 

Under current law no judicial remedies are available to Library employees to redress safety and 

health complaints. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

Section 215 of the CAA applies the rights and protections of OSHA to the Library and to GAO, 

effective one year after this study is transmitted to Congress.4 The applicable sections are 

described in the GAO portion of this study. 

1 See LCR 2020-7, “Policy and Procedures for Using the Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Process to Resolve Disputes” (June 6, 1995). 

2 See LCR 218-18, “Library of Congress Safety and Health Committee” (1995). 

3 See LCR 1817-6. 

4 2 U.S.C. 1341(g)(2). 

- 140 -
EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

The CAA will impose additional obligations on the Library. Under the CAA, the Library will be 

required to adhere to the safety and health regulations issued by the Board under section 215(d), 

whereas the Library’s compliance with safety and health standards under OSHA is not now 

subject to enforcement by any entity outside of the Library. However, the Library already 

purports to conform with applicable federal laws and regulations, including Executive Order 

12196 and 29 C.F.R. part 1960, which set out the basic program elements for federal employee 

occupational safety and health programs. 

Retaliation 

The CAA will provide Library employees with a right to bring a civil action for intimidation, 

discrimination or reprisal actions taken by an employing office because the employee has opposed 

a practice made unlawful by the CAA, or because the employee has initiated proceedings, made a 

charge, or testified, assisted, or participated in a hearing or proceeding under the CAA.1 

Administrative 

Under present law, the Library has an internal investigation and administrative grievance process 

to address safety and health complaints.2 Under the CAA, however, the General Counsel of the 

Office of Compliance will exercise the authority to investigate and inspect places of employment, 

as well as issue citations and prosecute violations that are not corrected by the employing office 

named in the citation or notification.3 

Library of Congress unions noted that they and management have cooperated regarding safety 

inspections and ergonomic issues, and that the Library’s Safety Services Office has adopted an 

active safety program. However, the current exemption of the Library from OSHA provisions has 

caused occasional enforcement problems, and the control exercised by the Architect of the Capitol 

over most of the Library’s buildings, including high-hazard areas, creates questions of who is 

responsible for correcting problems. 

1 The general anti-reprisal provision in section 207 of the CAA prohibits retaliation against a 

covered employee for exercising rights under the CAA, including the rights and protections of 

section 215. 

2 See LCR 1817-6, “Hazard Abatement Program to Ensure Safe Conditions for Library 

Employees” (September 1994) (Draft) and LCR 2020-7, “Policy and Procedures for Using the 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Process to Resolve Disputes” (June 16, 1994). 

3 2 U.S.C. 1341(c). 

- 141 -
Record Keeping and Report Obligations 

Section 668(a)(5) of title 29 requires agency heads, including the head of the Library of Congress, 

to submit annual reports to the Secretary of Labor on occupational accidents and injuries and on 

the agency programs established under section 668. Section 7902(e) of title 5 imposes similar 

record keeping and report requirements on each agency. However, there is no apparent 

mechanism for enforcement of these sections against federal agencies. 

Section 215 of the CAA and the proposed requirements thereunder do not require employing 

offices to comply with these general safety and health record keeping requirements.1 However, 

certain record keeping requirements that are part of the substantive safety and health standards 

under 29 C.F.R. parts 1910 and 1926, such as employee exposure records, are required.2 The 

Office of Compliance Board has not addressed whether section 215 of the CAA and the 

regulations the Board proposes to implement thereunder can be harmonized with the preexisting 

statutory requirements otherwise applicable to the Library, but not within the scope of the CAA, 

that might independently apply to the Library.3 

Judicial 

Under present law no judicial remedies are available to Library employees, nor will the CAA 

provide employees with a judicial remedy. However, the CAA does afford employing offices and 

the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance certain appeal rights following a hearing or 

variance proceeding. These appeal rights are discussed in the section of this study on GAO. 

Office of Compliance Inspection 

The Office of Compliance General Counsel conducted inspections of the Library of Congress 

buildings in March of 1996. Based on the inspection tours, the General Counsel made the 

following finding: “The Library has an active and effective safety and health program staffed with 

knowledgeable personnel. . . . The safety and health staff of the Library, along with employee 

members of the safety and health committee, should be commended. Of the deficiencies noted in 

1 See Notice of Proposed Rule Making implementing section 215 of the CAA, 142 Cong. Rec. 

S11021 (daily ed. Sept. 19, 1996). 

2 See id. 

3 See 42 Cong. Rec. S 11019, S 11020 (daily ed. September 19, 1996) (NPRM implementing 

section 215) (citing Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Submission for Approval and 

Issuance of Interim Regulations under section 203 of the CAA 142 Cong. Rec. S224 (daily 

ed. Jan. 22, 1996) (declining to address issue of harmonizing regulations regarding overtime 

exemption for law enforcement officers under section 203 with preexisting statutory overtime 

exemption for Capitol Police under 40 U.S.C. 206b-206c)). 

- 142 -
these buildings, almost none were in areas within control of the Library.”1 

1 See “Report on Initial Inspections of Facilities for Compliance with Occupational; Safety and 

Health Standards Under Section 215,” June 28, 1996, at III-57 (Office of Compliance 

publication). 

- 143 -
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 

(Chapter 71, Title 5 U.S.C.) 

Substantive Rights 

Because the Library is expressly included within the definition of employing “agency,” Library 

employees are directly covered under the federal service labor-management relations statute in 

chapter 71 of title 5, U.S.C.1 Thus, they have the right to choose whether to be represented by a 

labor organization for purposes of bargaining over terms and conditions of employment, they are 

protected against unfair labor practices (ULP) that may be committed by either an employing 

office or a labor organization, and their representatives may avail themselves of the provisions 

governing the resolution of grievances and of disputes over the negotiability of bargaining 

proposals. Further, the regulations promulgated by the Federal Labor Relations Authority 

(FLRA) apply to the Library. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

The Federal Labor Relations Authority, an independent agency in the executive branch, is 

responsible for administering chapter 71. The FLRA conducts elections and other proceedings to 

decide issues of representation, and it rules on whether unfair labor practices have been 

committed and orders appropriate relief. The Authority’s General Counsel is responsible for 

investigating and prosecuting such unfair labor practice cases before the FLRA. 

In the event of a collective bargaining impasse, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 

(FMCS) provides mediating services to facilitate the reaching of an agreement. Where agreement 

is not reached, the parties may present the issue for resolution to the Federal Services Impasses 

Panel, which operates as an adjunct to the FLRA. 

Judicial 

Decisions of the FLRA are judicially reviewable by U.S. Courts of Appeals. 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

Insofar as the CAA applies the rights, protections and responsibilities of chapter 71 to employing 

offices of the legislative branch, subjecting the Library to the CAA in lieu of chapter 71 would not 

1 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(3). 

- 145 -
result in significant changes in the substantive rules governing labor-management relations. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Bringing the Library under the coverage of the CAA would afford the Library and its employees 

an administrative mechanism closely modeled after the procedures of Federal Labor Relations 

Authority. Under the CAA, the Board of Directors exercises the authority to conduct 

representation cases and to decide unfair labor practices. Legal questions on such matters as the 

appropriateness of bargaining units, exclusions from bargaining units, and whether representation 

elections were conducted free of objectionable conduct are decided by the Board. The General 

Counsel of the Office of Compliance exercises the authority to investigate and prosecute unfair 

labor practice allegations before a hearing officer, who issues a written decision within 90 days of 

determining whether the allegations have merit and if so, what remedies are appropriate. Hearing 

officer decisions may be appealed to the Board of Directors. 

Judicial 

Decisions of the FLRA under chapter 71 are reviewable by appropriate U.S. Courts of Appeals, 

while decisions of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance under the CAA are 

reviewable by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

- 146 -
WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION ACT 

(WARN) 

Substantive Rights 

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) does not currently apply 

to the Library or its employees. The WARN Act assures employees in the private sector of notice 

in advance of office or plant closings or mass layoffs.1 

Either under Library regulations 2 or collective bargaining agreements, the Library is generally 

obligated to provide advance notice to employees affected by a reduction in force (RIF). This 

notice period is longer than the 60 days ordinarily guaranteed under the WARN Act. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

Bargaining unit members at the Library may submit a claim alleging a violation of notice 

requirements under negotiated grievance procedures, and non-members of bargaining units may 

submit such a claim under the Library’s administrative grievance procedures. 

Future-Effective Changes Under the CAA 

Section 205 of the CAA applies the rights and protections of the WARN Act to the Library and 

GAO employees, effective one year after this study is transmitted to Congress.3 

EVALUATION 

For the reasons discussed in the GAO and GPO sections of this study, the right to advance notice 

established in the Library’s RIF regulations are, in most respects, as extensive as, or more 

extensive than, the rights afforded under WARN Act provisions made applicable by the CAA. 

However, unlike the notice rights under the Library regulation, the notice rights under the CAA 

1 See 29 U.S.C. 2101-2109. 

2 Section 4 of LCR 2021-2, “Policies and Procedures in a Reduction-in-Force for NonBargaining Unit Staff Members and Staff Members in Bargaining Unit Positions in the Law 

Library” (September 30, 1981). 

3 2 U.S.C. 1315(a)(2), (d)(2). 

- 147 -
are provided for by statute and can be enforced by the filing of a civil action. 

Administrative and Judicial Procedures 

Only administrative processes are available in a case where a Library employee is affected by a 

RIF, including where notice requirements were not met. After the WARN Act provisions of the 

CAA go into effect, a Library employee who alleges a violation may elect to pursue an 

administrative complaint and appeal through the Office of Compliance, or may file a civil action. 

As a jury trial should be available to private sector employees1 and any party under the CAA “may 

demand a jury trial where a jury trial would be available in an action against a private defendant,”2 

a covered employee may request a jury trial under the CAA as well. 

1 See Bentley v. Arlee Home Fashions, Inc., 861 F.Supp. 65 (E.D. Ark. 1994). 

2 Section 408(c) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1408(c). 

- 148 -
UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT 

AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT OF 1994 

(USERRA) 

Substantive Rights 

The Library is covered by the substantive provisions of USERRA, which apply throughout the 

federal government, and which are described in the section of this study on GAO.1 Like other 

employers that are part of the legislative branch, the Library is authorized under USERRA to 

determine that it is “impossible or unreasonable” to reemploy a person otherwise entitled to 

reemployment, in which case OPM shall ensure that the person is offered alternative employment 

of like seniority, status, and pay at a federal executive agency.2 

Like GPO, but unlike GAO, the Library is excluded from coverage by OPM’s authority to 

establish regulations implementing the provisions of USERRA, which applies only to Federal 

executive agencies.3 The Library has issued a regulation governing reemployment rights of 

veterans, but the Library has indicated that the regulation is out of date and will be revised. 

Procedures 

Administrative 

As was described in the section on GAO, an employee may invoke the investigation and 

informal compliance efforts by the Labor Department.

4 However, Library employees (like 

those at GPO, but unlike those at GAO) are not entitled to use the other federal sector 

administrative procedures under USERRA — representation by the Office of Special Counsel, 

and adjudication of a complaint before the MSPB — which apply only to “Federal executive 

agencies.”5 

1 See 38 U.S.C. 4303(4)(A)(ii), (5), 4313, 4314. 

2 See 38 U.S.C. 4314(a), (c). 

3 Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 4303(5), 4331(b)(1), OPM’s regulations apply with regard to any 

“Federal executive agency,” which does not include the Library. See also 5 C.F.R. 

353.102(2) (scope of application of OPM regulations). 

4 See 38 U.S.C. 4314(c), 4322. 

5 See 38 U.S.C. 4303(5), 4324. 

- 149 -
Library employees may use the agency’s dispute resolution process, described above, and a 

member of a bargaining unit may submit a complaint under the negotiated grievance procedure 

and a non-member may proceed under the Library’s administrative grievance or appeals 

procedures. 

Judicial 

Employees of the federal government, unlike those in the private sector, have no right to file a 

civil action under USERRA.1 

Future-Effective Changes under the CAA 

The Library, like GAO but unlike GPO, is also covered by section 206 of the CAA, which 

makes the rights and protections of USERRA applicable, effective one year after this study is 

transmitted to Congress.2 

EVALUATION 

Substantive Rights 

The Library is subject to the substantive provisions of the USERRA, which apply throughout the 

federal government and are also made applicable under the CAA. 

Procedures 

The Library’s administrative dispute resolution processes are generally available for Library 

employees, but these procedures do not offer a process independent of Library management. 

The negotiated grievance and arbitration procedure is also available, provided the employee is 

a member of a bargaining unit. 

In comparison, the CAA provides administrative procedures, including the right to an 

adjudicatory hearing and appeal to the independent Office of Compliance Board, for any 

alleged USERRA violation. The CAA also provides the right to file a civil action, which is 

not now available to Library employees under the USERRA.3 After CAA coverage of the 

1 See 38 U.S.C. 4324. 

2 2 U.S.C. 1316(a)(2)(B), (C), (d)(2). 

3 Employees of private employers or state governments may also commence a civil action 

under the USERRA, or the Attorney General may commence a civil action on behalf of 

(continued...) 

- 150 -
Library goes into effect, Library employees alleging violations of USERRA will become 

entitled to use the procedures provided by the CAA. 

3 (...continued) 

these employees. See 38 U.S.C. 4323. 

- 151 -
EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT OF 1988 

(EPPA) 

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) of 1988 does not apply to the Library or its 

employees, nor does this legislation apply to any federal employers except as made applicable by 

the CAA and similar law.1 EPPA restricts employers’ use of lie detector tests of their employees. 

Effective one year after this study is transmitted to Congress, section 204 of the CAA will 

grant the rights and protections of the EPPA to employees of the Library, as it does to GAO 

employees.2 

EVALUATION 

Under presently effective law, no rights and protections of EPPA are applicable to the Library 

and its employees. In the future, however, Library employees will be afforded the same 

EPPA rights and protections as other employees covered under the CAA, including the right to 

use the administrative and judicial procedures of the CAA to obtain redress in case of a 

violation. 

1 See section 414 of the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act, Pub. L. No. 104-

331, 110 Stat. 4053 (Oct. 26, 1996). 

2 2 U.S.C. 1314(a)(2), (d)(2). 

- 153 -
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 

(Public Access Provisions) 

Substantive Rights 

Titles II and III of the ADA, which relate to public access to public services and public 

accommodations,1 are applicable in their entirety to certain congressional instrumentalities, 

including the Library, under section 509 of the ADA.2 The substantive provisions are described in 

the section of this report on GAO. 

Procedures 

Section 509(2) of the ADA currently requires certain instrumentalities, including the Library, to 

“establish remedies and procedures to be utilized with respect to the rights and protections” of the 

ADA made applicable.3 The Library has provided that members of the public who allege violation 

of the public access requirements may file a complaint with the Associate Librarian for 

Constituent Services.4 However, the ADA public access provisions now in effect do not provide 

judicial processes in case of a complaint against the Library. 

Future-Effective Provision Under the CAA 

Section 509(6) of the ADA will make the remedies and procedures of section 717 of Title VII 

available to visitors, guests, and patrons of the Library, as well as GAO and GPO, who wish to 

pursue claims under the public access provisions of the ADA, effective one year after this study is 

transmitted to Congress. The administrative and judicial procedures to be provided under section 

509(6) are described in the portion of this study on GAO. 

1 Sections 201-245 and 301-309 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12141-12165, 12181-12189. 

2 42 U.S.C. 12209(1). 

3 42 U.S.C. 12209(2). 

4 Library of Congress, “Interim Policies, Procedures, and Remedies to Implement Pub. L. No. 

101-336 [ADA],” section 9(B) (undated). 

- 155 -
EVALUATION 

The evaluation in the section of this study on GAO applies as well for the Library. In general 

terms, section 509(6) establishes a process under which a visitor, guest, or patron may pursue a 

complaint individually through an administrative complaints process administered by the agency 

and then, if not satisfied, may file a civil action in district court. 

The CAA does not provide a visitor, guest, or patron of the Library the right to file a civil action 

or to pursue an administrative remedy on his or her own. Instead, the CAA adopts an 

enforcement-based process. An individual may file a charge with the General Counsel of the 

Office of Compliance, who investigates and may pursue an administrative complaint on the 

individual’s behalf. 

- 156 -
CONCLUSIONS 

Substantive Rights 

Library employees currently are granted substantive rights under most CAA laws, and, one year 

after this study is transmitted to Congress, the CAA will extend the substantive rights under 

additional laws to fill most remaining gaps in substantive coverage. In addition, Library 

employees enjoy civil service protections in a number of areas, whether guaranteed by statute or 

established administratively by regulation and collective bargaining agreements, extending beyond 

the scope of the rights and protections applied by the CAA. Two Library unions commented that 

generally the “written protections” at the Library are roughly equivalent to protections applying to 

other federal workers, but that there is a problem with the lack of effective enforcement of those 

standards. 

Administrative Processes 

Administrative procedures applied by the Library or established under collective bargaining 

agreements are available to resolve Library employees’ complaints and grievances on a wide range 

of subjects. However, Library employees have no right to appeal administratively from the 

Librarian’s final decision on discrimination complaints or adverse actions. (Bargaining unit 

members can secure the decisions of a neutral arbitrator.) Furthermore, while the Library 

provides for investigation of discrimination complaints, and hearings before a neutral hearing 

examiner, no outside agency has authority to investigate or take enforcement action. Nor does an 

outside agency now have authority to investigate or take enforcement action regarding 

occupational safety and health, although the Library will come under the jurisdiction of the Office 

of Compliance with respect to OSHA and certain other laws, effective one year after this study is 

transmitted to Congress. The Library currently is subject to the jurisdiction of the FLRA in labormanagement matters. 

Judicial Processes and Relief 

Library employees now have, or will be granted under the CAA, rights to use judicial procedures 

that are comparable to rights available to covered Congressional employees under the CAA. 

However, under certain applicable laws, the right to a jury trial and to recover certain kinds of 

relief are not available to Library employees. For example, Library employees, like executive 

branch employees, arguably may not request a jury trial in cases under the ADEA, EPA, or FLSA, 

and may not recover compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. 1981 or liquidated damages under 

the ADEA. Nor will the CAA extend these remedies to Library employees. 

Independent Process for Issuing Substantive Regulations 

For the subject areas within the scope of the CAA, substantive rights of Library employees are 

generally defined not by Library regulation, but by statute or government-wide regulations 

adopted by executive branch agencies and, in the future, by the Office of Compliance Board. 

With respect to general civil service protections, such as merit hiring and the conduct of RIFs, the 

Library has exercised considerable authority to promulgate substantive regulations, and Library 

- 157 -
unions assert the right to bargain collectively about the terms of such regulations. 

The study also identified several issues regarding the Library that warrant further discussion: 

Administrative Processes for Discrimination Complaints 

Employees of the Library — alone among the instrumentalities — have no administrative avenue 

for appeal from a final decision by the head of the agency on a discrimination complaint. The 

Library has suggested that its employees be authorized to use the administrative procedures of the 

Office of Compliance under the CAA, after first having used the EEO procedures of the Library 

for a period up to 180 days. 

Two employee unions responded with support for the general concept of authorizing appeals to 

the Office of Compliance. However, instead of the application of CAA procedures, the unions 

advocate the application of EEO procedures like those at executive branch employing agencies, 

except that administrative appeal to the Office of Compliance would be substituted for appeal to 

the EEOC. The unions commented that, for most complainants, the investigatory process that the 

Library’s EEO office is supposed to undertake are far more important than remedies before a 

hearing officer. Such investigation is provided under the Library’s current procedures, as it is 

under executive branch procedures, but is not required under the CAA. 

FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (FMLA) 

The Library is now subject to the FMLA provisions in civil service law, codified in title 5 of the 

U.S. Code, and by OPM regulations implementing those provisions. However, section 202(c) of 

the CAA transfers coverage of the Library from the civil service provisions to the private sector 

provisions of the FMLA (codified in title 29 of the U.S. Code), effective as of one year after this 

study is transmitted to Congress. Section 202(c) will grant employees a private right of action 

that is unavailable for FMLA violations under civil service law, but will also reduce substantive 

FMLA protections, which are stronger under civil service law than in the private sector. 

Section 202(c) covers GAO as well as the Library, and both instrumentalities recommended that 

section 202(c) be rescinded, because they have already established their FMLA leave systems in 

conformity with title 5 requirements and within the parameters of the general federal leave system, 

and a shift to title 29 will be administratively disruptive without serving a significant public 

purpose. Two Library union locals likewise recommended that coverage be retained under title 5, 

because title 29 provides exemptions tailored to the private sector that are not appropriate to civil 

service employment. These unions also stated that the right to sue for civil damages under title 29 

would be “a rather extraordinary remedy when extended to federal employees,” and that 

“administrative remedies that are typically available to federal employees would appear to be a 

more appropriate response to” an FMLA violation. On the other hand, section 202(c) furthers the 

general principle, expressed by Congress in enacting the CAA, that private sector law should 

apply to the legislative branch. 

The Library also suggested that its employees who allege any FMLA violations be able to seek a 

- 158 -
remedy by using the procedures prescribed in the CAA. The result would be a hybrid 

arrangement favorable to Library employees — substantive rights more protective than those 

afforded to covered employees under the CAA, and judicial procedures more favorable than those 

afforded to most federal sector employees under civil service statutes. 

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS (CHAPTER 71) 

Labor-management relations at the Library are governed by Chapter 71 and implemented by the 

FLRA. The Library has recommended that legislation be enacted to place it instead under the 

labor-management program of the CAA. The three unions of Library employees disagree with 

this recommendation. 

The Library does not assert that the rights, protections, procedures, and relief afforded Library 

employees in the labor-management relations area are not now comprehensive and effective, or 

that placing the Library under the CAA would make them more so. Rather, due to the special 

relationship between the Library and Congress, the Library suggested that it should come under 

the Office of Compliance’s authority with respect to most of the laws made applicable by the 

CAA, and urged that the Library be included under the labor-management provisions of the CAA 

so as to achieve an integrated approach to employment matters administered by a single body. 

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), a division of the Library, presented a somewhat 

different rationale: that it is anomalous and raises separation-of-powers concerns for labor 

relations issues involving CRS, a legislative entity, to be resolved by the FLRA, an agency in the 

executive branch. 

The three unions of Library employees urged that application of Chapter 71 to the Library not be 

changed. Comments from unions stated that collective bargaining under Chapter 71 has 

functioned effectively at the Library for nearly 20 years, and shifting coverage to the CAA would 

be disruptive. A union questioned whether the Office of Compliance would have the resources 

necessary to provide the services required by the Library and its labor organizations. 

Furthermore, certain of these commenters raised separation-of-powers concerns that they say 

actually argue against placing the Library under the Congressional employment system, because 

the Library exercises certain executive functions, especially in the area of copyright. Even CRS 

employees are unlike Congressional employees, a union explained, in that they are career merit 

employees, for whom collective bargaining affords essential protection against partisan and 

ideological pressures. 

ADA PUBLIC ACCESS PROVISIONS 

In case of a dispute over accessibility by visitors, guests, or patrons, section 210(g) of the CAA 

establishes a private right of action in United States district court after there has been resort to an 

administrative process in the Library. This provision will be effective one year after this study is 

submitted to Congress. 

Section 210(g) applies as well to GAO and GPO. However, the Library is unique among the 

- 159 -
three instrumentalities in that the Architect of the Capitol has responsibilities with respect to 

Library facilities and would have a role in correcting certain access violations. The Architect, 

however, is not covered by section 210(g). For the Architect, as for the House and Senate, 

charges concerning access are considered in an administrative process under the Office of 

Compliance, with judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

The Library recommends that legislation be enacted to shift the remedial system, insofar as it 

concerns the Library, from private enforcement through civil action to enforcement through the 

Office of Compliance. Because of the Architect’s pervasive role, this recommendation is intended 

to promote an integrated approach that avoids fragmentation of procedures and responsibility. 

- 160 -
APPENDIX A 

SECTION 230 OF THE 

CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995, 

AS AMENDED 

Section 230 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1371), as 

amended by section 309 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, Pub. L. 

No. 104-53, 109 Stat. 538 (Nov. 19, 1995): 

PART F—STUDY 

SEC. 230. STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GENERAL 

ACCOUNTING OFFICE, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, AND 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall undertake a study of— 

(1) the application of the laws listed in subsection (b) to— 

(A) the General Accounting Office; 

(B) the Government Printing Office; and 

(C) the Library of Congress; and 

(2) the regulations and procedures used by the entities referred to in paragraph (1) to 

apply and enforce such laws to themselves and their employees. 

(b) APPLICABLE STATUTES.—The study under this section shall consider the application of the 

following laws: 

(1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), and related 

provisions of section 2302 of title 5, United States Code. 

(2) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), and 

related provisions of section 2302 of title 5, United States Code. 

(3) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), and related 

provisions of section 2302 of title 5, United States Code. 

(4) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611 et seq.), and related 

provisions of sections 6381 through 6387 of title 5, United States Code. 

(5) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), and related provisions 

of sections 5541 through 5550a of title 5, United States Code. 

A-1
(6) The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), and related 

provisions of section 7902 of title 5, United States Code. 

(7) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.). 

(8) Chapter 71 (relating to Federal service labor-management relations) of title 5, United 

States Code. 

(9) The General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 1980 (31 U.S.C. 731 et seq.). 

(10) The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). 

(11) The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.). 

(12) Chapter 43 (relating to veterans’ employment and reemployment) of title 38, United 

States Code. 

(c) CONTENTS OF STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—The study under this section shall 

evaluate whether the rights, protections, and procedures, including administrative and judicial 

relief, applicable to the entities listed in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) and their employees are 

comprehensive and effective and shall include recommendations for any improvements in 

regulations or legislation, including proposed regulatory or legislative language. 

(d) DEADLINE AND DELIVERY OF STUDY.—Not later than December 31, 1996— 

(1) the Board shall prepare and complete the study and recommendations required under 

this section; and 

(2) the Board shall transmit such study and recommendations (with the Board's 

comments) to the head of each entity considered in the study, and to the Congress by delivery 

to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President pro tempore of the Senate for 

referral to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and of the Senate. 

A-2
APPENDIX B

May 2, 1996 

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 

STUDY OF

STATUTORY RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS AT THE 

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

AND LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

MANDATED BY

SECTION 230 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

The Board of the Office of Compliance, established by the Congressional Accountability 

Act of 1995 (CAA), is studying the application of certain employment and antidiscrimination 

laws at the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Government Printing Office (GPO), and 

the Library of Congress (LC). 

This notice requests GAO, GPO, and LC, their employees and employee representatives, 

persons who use their public services and public accommodations, as well as any other 

interested persons, to provide information helpful to the Board in conducting the study. To 

enable the Board to fully consider all information, such information should be submitted to: 

Executive Director, Office of Compliance, at the address or fax number printed below, by 

May 31, 1996. 

BACKGROUND 

The Congressional Accountability Act, the first law passed by the 104th Congress, applies 

eleven employment and antidiscrimination laws to employees of the House of Representatives, 

the Senate, and instrumentalities of the legislative branch. The laws made applicable by the 

CAA provide rights and protections in the areas of: employment discrimination (race, color, 

religion, sex, national origin, age, disability); overtime pay and minimum wage; family and 

medical leave; employee polygraph protection; employee notification in case of office or plant 

closings or mass layoffs; employment and reemployment rights for those in the uniformed 

B-1
services; occupational health and safety; labor-management relations; and discrimination on 

the basis of disability in the provision of public services and public accommodations. Eight of 

the eleven laws became effective under the CAA on January 23, 1996, and the remaining three 

will go into effect by the end of 1996. 

Before enactment of the CAA, legal rights and protections in many of these areas already 

applied to the three largest Congressional instrumentalities -- GAO, GPO, and LC. The CAA 

makes certain initial modifications in the laws that now apply, and mandates a study that will: 

• review the laws, regulations, and procedures applicable to these instrumentalities and 

their employees; 

• evaluate whether the rights, protections, and procedures currently in place are 

“comprehensive and effective;” and 

• provide recommendations for improvement in regulations and legislation. 

As originally enacted, the CAA directed the Administrative Conference of the United 

States (Conference) to conduct the study and submit it to the Board, which would then transmit 

the study, together with the Board’s comments, to the Congress and the instrumentalities by 

December 31, 1996. However, Congress amended the CAA in November 1995 to transfer 

responsibility for conducting the study from the Conference to the Board. 

To assist interested persons in identifying information pertinent to the study, Appendix A 

lists the laws made applicable by the CAA and describes the statutory, regulatory, and 

procedural provisions that will be the subject of the study. 

SCOPE OF THE STUDY 

Part 1. Application of laws, regulations, and procedures. The first part of the study 

will describe: 

(a) What laws apply: the substantive statutory provisions applicable to the instrumentalities 

and their employees. These will include the 11 laws made applicable by the CAA, as well as 

the GAO Personnel Act and certain provisions of civil service law, which apply, supplement, 

or affect the rights and protections of the laws made applicable by the CAA. 

(b) How do the laws apply: the administrative and judicial mechanisms that apply the 

substantive provisions of laws to the instrumentality and its employees. These will include: 

(1) the authority of regulatory agencies, or of the instrumentality itself, to issue regulations, 

adjudicate or resolve claims, or take enforcement action; (2) judicial mechanisms for 

adjudicating claims and hearing appeals from administrative decisions; and (3) the remedies 

that may be granted in case of a violation. 

B-2
(c) Regulations and procedures: the regulations and administrative procedures used to 

apply and enforce these laws to the instrumentality and its employees. These will include: 

(1) regulations and procedures issued by regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over the 

instrumentalities, (2) regulations and procedures issued by the instrumentalities themselves, 

and (3) collective bargaining agreements that provide procedures for applying the rights and 

protections of the listed laws. 

Part 2. Evaluation. The second part of the study will evaluate whether the rights, 

protections and procedures, including administrative and judicial relief, are “comprehensive 

and effective.” 

The study will use the CAA itself as a standard against which to evaluate the rights, 

protections, and procedures applicable at the instrumentalities. Thus, the study will include a 

comparison between the rights, protections, and procedures applicable at each of the 

instrumentalities with the corresponding rights, protections, and procedures applied to the 

House of Representatives and the Senate under the CAA. 

Furthermore, the rights, protections, and procedures applied at the three instrumentalities 

are in many ways similar to those at executive branch agencies. In conducting the evaluation, 

the study will consider how the rights, protections, and procedures applied at each 

instrumentality compare with those available to executive branch employees generally. 

Part 3. Recommendations. Finally, the study will include recommendations for 

improvements in regulations or legislation, including proposed regulatory and statutory 

language. 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 

The purpose of this Notice is to request that the three instrumentalities, their employees 

and employee representatives, and persons who use public services and public accommodations 

at the instrumentalities, as well as any other interested persons, provide information helpful to 

the Board in conducting the study, such as: 

• Studies, evaluations, and other reports conducted by the instrumentalities or by outside 

auditors or agencies, evaluating the rights, protections, and procedures available to 

employees and users of public services and accommodations at the instrumentalities. 

Please include reports showing the extent of compliance with applicable requirements, 

and the timeliness and effectiveness of responses to any complaints. 

• Information showing the extent to which rights, protections, and procedures at the 

instrumentalities are “comprehensive and effective.” 

• Identification of any rights, protections, and procedures that the commenter believes 

may not be “comprehensive and effective.” 

B-3
• Information that would help the Board in comparing the rights, protections, and 

procedures at each instrumentality with: (1) those applied to the House of 

Representatives and the Senate under the CAA1 and (2) those generally applicable to 

executive branch employees. 

• Information that would be helpful to the Board in making recommendations for 

improvements in regulations or legislation, and in ascertaining how a recommended 

change would affect the “comprehensiveness and effectiveness” of applicable rights, 

protections, and procedures, and other likely consequences of the change. 

Commenters are requested to provide specific rationale and any supporting information. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 

All materials submitted to the Executive Director in response to this notice will be 

considered public documents and will be made available for inspection upon request by any 

member of the public. (If an employee submits any comment or other document and requests 

not to be identified, the identity of the employee will be kept confidential.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

For further information about this notice and the study, please contact Lawrence Novey, 

Senior Counsel to the Office of Compliance, at (202) 724-9250. 

Ricky Silberman 

Executive Director 

1 Any individual who desires additional information about the rights, protections, and procedures 

applicable under the CAA may contact the Office of Compliance. 

B-4 
APPENDIX A 

In describing the application of laws, regulations, and procedures at the instrumentalities, 

the study will cover the following: 

I. STATUTORY AUTHORITIES 

A. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS. The study will identify and describe the 

substantive provisions of law that apply, or will apply, to the instrumentalities and their 

employees. 

1. Laws made applicable by the Congressional Accountability Act. The laws to be 

studied are listed in section 230(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA). 

a. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION 

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) (Title 

VII) prohibits discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, 

sex, or national origin. 

• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et 

seq.) (ADEA) prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 

years of age and over. 

• Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12101-12117) (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

§§ 701 et seq.) prohibit employment discrimination against qualified 

individuals with disabilities. 

• The Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. § 206(d)) prohibits pay discrimination on the 

basis of sex. 

b. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, LABOR, HEALTH AND SAFETY 

• The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.) (FLSA) 

governs overtime pay, minimum wage, and child labor protection. 

• The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. §§ 2611 et seq.) 

(FMLA) entitles eligible employees to take leave for certain family and 

medical reasons. 

• The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. §§ 2001 et 

seq.) (EPPA) restricts use of lie detector tests by employers. 

B-i 
• The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 

§§ 2101 et seq.) (WARN) assures employees of notice in advance of office 

or plant closings or mass layoffs. 

• Section 2 of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act of 1994 (38 U.S.C. chapter 43) (USERRA) protects job rights of 

individuals who serve in the military and other uniformed services. 

• The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations statute (5 U.S.C. chapter 

71) establishes the rights of individuals to form, join, or assist a labor 

organization, or to refrain from such activity, and to collectively bargain 

over terms and conditions of employment through their representatives. 

• The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq.) 

(OSHA) protects the safety and health of employees from physical, 

chemical, and other hazards in their places of employment. 

c. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES AND PUBLIC 

ACCOMMODATIONS 

• Titles II and III of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12131-12189) (ADA) prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals 

with disabilities in the provision of public services and public 

accommodations. 

2. Civil Service Laws and Other Relevant Statutes. The laws to be studied under 

section 230(b) of the CAA also include certain civil service and other laws that apply, 

supplement, or affect the substantive rights and protections afforded by the laws listed above, 

including several provisions of civil service law codified in title 5 of the U.S. Code, and the 

General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 1980 (31 U.S.C. §§ 731 et seq.). 

3. CAA Provisions with Future Effective Dates. Several provisions of the CAA 

become effective at the instrumentalities one year after the study is transmitted to Congress: 

• CAA provisions that now apply to Congressional offices will be extended to cover 

GAO and LC (but not GPO) with respect to four of the laws: EPPA, WARN, 

USERRA, and OSHA. 

• GAO and LC (but not GPO) will be subject to the private-sector provisions, rather 

than the federal-sector provisions, of the FMLA, except that the authority of the 

Department of Labor will be exercised by the heads of these two instrumentalities. 

• In case of any claims under ADA titles II and III, the judicial and administrative 

mechanisms under section 717 of Title VII will apply for all three instrumentalities, 

B-ii 
except that the authorities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) will be exercised by the heads of the instrumentalities. 

To enable Congress to review the delayed statutory provisions during the year after the study is 

transmitted, the study will evaluate and provide any necessary recommendations regarding 

these delayed provisions. 

B. HOW DO THE LAWS APPLY? The study will identify and describe the statutory 

provisions establishing administrative and judicial mechanisms that apply the laws at the 

instrumentality. This includes: 

• authority for the instrumentalities, or for regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction 

over the instrumentality, to perform regulatory functions, such as issuing 

regulations, hearing and resolving employee claims, or conducting enforcement 

activities; 

• judicial mechanisms to adjudicate employee claims or to hear appeals from agency 

decisions; and 

• the kinds of remedies that can be awarded in case of a violation. 

II. REGULATIONS, PROCEDURES, AND IMPLEMENTATION. 

The study will identify and describe the regulations and administrative procedures used to 

apply and enforce those laws to the instrumentality and its employees. This includes: 

• regulations and procedures issued by the instrumentalities to apply and enforce the 

laws (instrumentalities may call these “regulations,” “orders,” “notices,” or 

“instructions”); 

• regulations and procedures applicable to the instrumentality that are issued by 

outside regulatory agencies and offices; and 

• any procedures under collective bargaining agreements that are used to apply and 

enforce the listed laws to the instrumentality and its employees. 

B-iii 
APPENDIX C 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 

General Accounting Office (GAO) 

GAO Management 

Comments from officials of GAO, submitted on behalf of the agency, stated that most of the 

protections given to GAO employees under the CAA were already available to the employees 

under the terms of other laws, and further stated that GAO provides a comprehensive and 

effective set of policies and procedures to protect the rights of its employees. 

The GAO comments also stated the belief that the GAO Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) has 

effectively performed its roles, but also stated that there is some Congressional concern about the 

need for GAO to have a PAB. The comments further stated that, because of budgetary 

considerations, the House Report accompanying the FY96 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill 

requested GAO to review the PAB and consult with the oversight committee to find a more 

appropriate placement for the PAB’s functions. Accordingly, GAO stated that it has been 

considering what would be a more appropriate placement for the PAB functions, but has not 

come to any conclusions on this matter. 

The GAO comments offered several recommendations for statutory amendment. First, GAO 

recommended that sections 201(c)(1) and (2) of the CAA, which insert GAO into the coverage 

provisions of Title VII and the ADEA, be repealed. GAO stated that it would be subject to both 

of those laws anyway, because the laws apply to “executive agencies,” a term that includes GAO. 

GAO stated that sections 201(c)(1) and (2) are therefore redundant, and, more important, are not 

consistent with past practice of legislative drafters and may create some ambiguity with respect to 

the inclusion of GAO under other statutes. 

The GAO comments also expressed concern that sections 201(c)(3)(E) and 210(g) of the CAA 

(which assign certain authorities of the EEOC to the Comptroller General) would interfere with 

the division of powers established between the Comptroller General and the GAO Personnel 

Appeals Board (PAB) pursuant to the GAO Personnel Act (GAOPA). GAO recommended that 

provisions of these CAA sections covering the authority of the Comptroller General be repealed, 

or, in the alternative, that the provisions be amended to reference that the Comptroller General 

and the PAB share the responsibility of the EEOC pursuant to the GAOPA. 

With respect to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), GAO’s comments recommended that 

GAO should remain covered under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. The comments 

stated that GAO employees are career civil servants who have always been subject to the annual 

and sick leave provisions of title 5, and that these provisions, together with the FMLA provisions 

in title 5, form a comprehensive scheme for federal employees’ leave entitlements. The comments 

C-1
also recommended that the current appeals procedures for violations remain in place, and stated 

that an employee may seek redress through OPM’s claims settlement authority or through the 

Court of Federal Claims. 

With regard to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), GAO 

recommended that coverage of GAO under the CAA be repealed. The comments stated that 

GAO’s Order on reductions in force (RIFs) affords employee protections that are more extensive 

and comprehensive than those under the WARN Act. Those procedures, the commenter stated, 

form an integrated system of which the notice provision is only one component. Protections 

include guaranteed consideration of seniority, performance, and veterans' preference in making the 

RIF decision. Also, even as to the limited issue of notice protection, the commenter stated that 

GAO’s RIF order provides employees more extensive rights than the WARN Act provisions of 

the CAA. For example, the commenter stated that the GAO order is not restricted to plant or 

office closings, but that full notice must be provided if even just one employee is affected by a 

RIF. GAO employees may resort to the PAB to decide whether notice is defective. The 

commenter also stated that the PAB has the authority to direct that the employee be reinstated 

until the notice defect is corrected and that this relief is not provided under the WARN Act. 

Concerning titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (which forbid 

discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of public services and public 

accommodations), GAO recommended that section 210(g) of the CAA be amended to provide 

that the remedies available to an individual alleging a denial of rights by GAO would be such 

remedies as would be awarded under sections 203 or 309(a) of the ADA.1 GAO’s comment 

stated that this would insure consistency of remedies provided by GAO with those provided by 

congressional entities under the CAA. 

GAO also recommended several amendments to the procedures as provided in the CAA: 

The GAO comments recommended that the CAA be amended to provide a mechanism 

whereby employing offices could challenge the issuance of an Occupational Safety and Health Act 

(OSHA) citation under the CAA. The comments stated that section 10 of OSHA gives an 

employer in the private sector 15 working days from notice of a citation to notify the Secretary 

that he wishes to contest the citation. The comment further stated that, if such procedure were 

implemented under the CAA, employing offices would not be required to wait until an 

enforcement proceeding to challenge a citation. 

GAO recommended that section 407 of the CAA be amended so that the employing office, 

rather than the Office of Compliance, is the respondent in judicial review proceedings. The 

1 Section 210(g) added a provision to the ADA making the remedies and procedures set forth in 

section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 available to any qualified person with a disability 

who is a visitor, guest, or patron of an instrumentality of Congress who alleges a violation of 

certain rights and protections under titles II and III of the ADA. 

C-2 
comment stated that the employing office is clearly an interested party and should be the named 

respondent. The comment also suggested that consideration be given to the fact that the federal 

courts and the GAO PAB are not parties in appellate review proceedings, nor is the Merit 

Systems Protection Board where the employee seeks review of a decision on the merits of the 

underlying personnel action. 

GAO also recommended that section 414 of the CAA be amended so that GAO could settle a 

case without the approval of the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance. If all parties 

agree that a case should be settled, the comment questioned the necessity for review by the 

Executive Director. GAO further stated that there seemed to be no reason for Executive Director 

review when any costs of settlement will be funded out of GAO's appropriation. In this respect, 

the comment stated, GAO is different from most other offices subject to section 414, since their 

settlements are funded by the account established under section 415 of the CAA. 

GAO Personnel Appeals Board 

Comments from officials of the PAB, submitted on behalf of the Board, recommended that the 

study recognize the similarity of the legal protections in GAO to those in the executive branch. 

The comments stated that, in enacting the GAOPA in 1980, Congress concluded that the 

independence of GAO was threatened by having its employment matters subject to review by the 

very agencies that GAO could be called upon by Congress to evaluate, and that GAO’s mission 

therefore mandates an independent and neutral personnel review system like the PAB provides. 

The comments also described the PAB's oversight role in recommending systemic changes at 

GAO and the role of the PAB General Counsel as a salaried employee advocate, which reduces 

the potential cost to GAO of outside legal fees where GAO is on the losing side in an employment 

rights case. The comments stated that the PAB system, overall, is a comprehensive and effective 

mechanism for accomplishing the goal of enforcing employee rights at the GAO. 

The comments stated that the PAB is well-suited to handle other GAO employee appeals in areas 

applied by the CAA that are not currently under the PAB’s jurisdiction. The subject areas over 

which the PAB thinks that it could exercise enforcement authority are: public access provisions 

of the ADA, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the FMLA, the Employee Polygraph 

Protection Act (EPPA), the WARN Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 

The comments also stated that consideration should be given to the potential problems of having 

GAO employees bringing charges against GAO management to the Office of Compliance, when 

GAO may well be called upon to evaluate that office. According to the comments, this type of 

conflict situation is exactly what Congress sought to avoid in giving GAO an independent 

personnel system and establishing the PAB. 

The comments suggested that it might be desirable to centralize enforcement coverage of 

C-3
legislative employees for whom enforcement by the Office of Compliance is not appropriate due 

to extensive differences in statutory protection. The comments stated that GAO, GPO and the 

Library have personnel legislation directly comparable to that of executive branch agencies, and 

that the PAB is the only established board equipped to deal with the full range of appeals arising 

from these instrumentalities. 

Finally, the comment recommended reducing the number of members of PAB from five members 

to three members total in order to enhance efficiency of the PAB. 

A PAB official submitted a separate comment on behalf of the PAB in response to an inquiry from 

a staff member at the Office of Compliance regarding the legislative removal of the PAB’s stay 

authority with respect to RIF-based actions. The comment stated that the PAB is troubled by the 

change and had communicated its opinions to the Comptroller General when the proposal was 

made by him to the Congress. The comment further stated that the PAB remains unaware of the 

rationale for denying the availability of this relief to GAO employees affected by a RIF action. The 

comment stated that the PAB continues to support the availability of stay relief, in appropriate 

circumstances, for GAO employees appealing a RIF-based action. 

GAO Employee Councils 

(1) An employee council that concentrates on civil rights issues submitted comments stating their 

belief that the separate personnel legislation for GAO has worked to the detriment of employee 

rights, and that alternatives to the present system, most likely requiring legislative change, must be 

found. The comment stated that the PAB receives it budget through GAO and that the Board 

members and the PAB General Counsel are appointed by the Comptroller General, and “[m]any 

employees do not believe that the PAB is either independent or effective in protecting employee 

rights.” 

The comment criticized the November 1995 legislation granting GAO management wide latitude 

in drawing RIF rules. The comment stated that the GAO’s use of narrowly drawn competitive 

areas likely allowed African Americans to be disproportionately affected and allowed GAO 

management to retaliate against people who filed complaints. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the 

PAB’s authority to stay a RIF “effectively rob[s]” employees of job rights where employees were 

targeted by RIFs because of unlawful discrimination. 

The commenter stated that GAO management has a history of challenging the PAB’s authority to 

address various issues, and recommended committing to law all those protections that currently 

apply in the executive branch. 

In the labor-management relations area, the commenter stated that there is no collective 

bargaining at GAO, and that the employee councils, which are chartered by GAO management, 

can only provide their views and that GAO “management routinely ignores us.” 

Regarding the GAO dispute resolution efforts in civil rights matters, the commenter stated that 

C-4
internal GAO mediation services “are provided by agency staff who are responsible for 

implementing the agency's civil rights and other programs and who are controlled by GAO 

management. Employees may be reluctant to utilize these resources, because they are not 

independent and may not be neutral.” The commenter claimed that the GAO civil rights office 

works closely with the GAO Office of the General Counsel in drafting decisions. The commenter 

added that employees' options regarding court review of Title VII claims have been narrowed by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Ramey v. Bowsher, which held that, after 

employees have chosen to bring their case to the PAB, their right to a jury trial in district court is 

forfeited. Finally, the commenter expressed concern about the lack of timeliness in the PAB's 

handling of cases. 

This commenter attached a letter from an employee, who also commented separately. The 

employee stated that the PAB General Counsel does not function independently of the GAO, but 

rather favors the GAO by settling cases that merit prosecution. 

(2) A comment from another employee council stated that GAO employees have rights and 

protection beyond those afforded other legislative branch employees by the CAA, and that those 

rights and protections are "comprehensive and effective." Specifically, the commenter stated that, 

while the council did not agree with all the PAB decisions, the PAB seems to act independently 

and without any predisposition to rule either in management's or the employees' favor. 

The employee council member suggested that legislation should be amended to clearly designate 

the PAB as the arbiter for employee complaints and class actions arising from employment and 

anti-discrimination laws and regulations. The commenter suggests that FMLA, OSHA, polygraph 

protection, and other claims would be properly heard by the PAB. 

(3) A comment from the employee council with an interest in persons with disabilities stated that 

overall, GAO has done very well in the past in hiring persons with disabilities. The commenter 

stated that problems exist in identification of current employees with disabilities. With regard to 

reasonable accommodations, the commenter stated that front-line supervisors often deny requests 

for accommodations of disabilities, and suggested that GAO can do much better in sensitizing 

managers about what a disability is. Regarding FMLA, the commenter stated that GAO has 

implemented this legislative mandate very well and there are no significant problems. Further, the 

commenter observed that, overall, GAO has made many improvements in making the 

headquarters building accessible. The commenter added that the PAB has been especially helpful 

in focusing GAO attention on those statutes that directly affect disabled employees, and suggested 

that PAB authority should be more explicit with regard to addressing issues relevant to laws that 

it enforces. 

Government Printing Office (GPO) 

GPO Management 

A GPO official, on behalf of the agency, urged the continuation of the status quo, with minor 

C-5
changes, and supported a consideration of the “resource sharing among the legislative branch 

agencies.” The comments explained: “If it is Congress’ desire that legislative branch agencies not 

use the boards and services of the executive branch to adjudicate employment and related issues, 

perhaps GAO’s Personnel Appeals Board or a similar panel could be the designated body for such 

purposes with respect to all three legislative branch agencies.” 

The GPO comments recommended against extending EPPA provisions to GPO, because GPO has 

no intention to administer lie detector tests. GPO stated that it is not averse to being covered by 

WARN Act provisions, but believes that extending coverage to the agency would not benefit 

employees and would merely duplicate or conflict with the existing notice protections under 

collective bargaining obligations and under applicable regulations regarding RIFs. Comments 

stated that GPO would not be opposed to being included in the USERRA provisions. As to 

whether GPO should be switched from FMLA provisions of title 5, U.S. Code, to those in title 

29, GPO observed that its FMLA program has worked well under OPM guidelines, which apply 

under title 5. Finally, GPO commented that GPO’s performance and compliance record has been 

found to be “better than the average federal or private operation,” and therefore GPO believes 

that it is unnecessary to extend additional OSHA coverage to the agency at this time. GPO 

further explained its view that any additional coverage would require a limited staff to devote time 

and energies to administrative requirements, thereby likely reducing GPO’s ability to fully protect 

its employees. 

A GPO official responsible for equal employment opportunity also submitted recommendations 

separately. These comments recommended that procedures be established to enable employees 

who work in the EEO program to file complaints outside the agency. Furthermore, the comments 

recommended that GPO employees be allowed to have decisions dealing with position 

classification be reviewed outside of the agency, the same as employees in the executive branch. 

The comment noted that, because of this lack of recourse to an outside agency, employees often 

bring the unfairness of this situation to the attention of the agency through the discrimination 

complaint process. 

GPO Employee Representative 

A union at GPO submitted comments noting that certain provisions of the CAA will apply to 

GAO and the Library, but not to GPO (relating to EPPA, WARN Act, USERRA, OSHA, and 

FMLA), and questions whether or not GPO should be included in these provisions. The union 

also commented that GPO’s classification system is not fair and equitable when it involves 

minority workers. 

GPO Employees 

Several GPO employees expressed concern about the slowness of the EEO process at GPO. An 

employee also objected to GPO's pre-selection of employees for upward mobility programs. 

One commenter, who is a non-bargaining unit employee located in a regional GPO office, stated 

that non-bargaining unit employees' terms and conditions are linked to the terms and conditions 

C-6
negotiated by management and labor in headquarters. The commenter expressed the view that 

GPO has too much power in setting wage rates with non-bargaining unit employees' having no 

means of appealing wage determinations that adversely affect them. 

Library of Congress 

Library Management 

Comments submitted on behalf of the Library urged, at a general level, that “the special 

relationship between the Library and the Congress” be considered. The comment stated that the 

Library’s primary historical mission is to serve Congress, and that, operationally, there are strong 

connections between the Library and the day-to-day functions of the Congress. 

The Library’s comments made several specific recommendations. First, regarding the handling of 

discrimination complaints, the comment stated that Library employees now lack the availability of 

an office, outside of the Library, to provide mediation services to them, and lack an administrative 

adjudication system that is outside of the control of their employer. The comment stated the 

belief that employees would have increased confidence in impartiality and expertise of the claims 

system if the Library is placed under the CAA’s EEO procedures, and recommended that the 

employees be authorized to use the administrative procedures of the Office of Compliance under 

the CAA, after first having used the EEO procedures of the Library for a period of up to 180 

days. 

With regard to OSHA and the ADA public access provisions, the comments stated that the CAA 

recognizes the important role of the Architect of Capitol in both areas, and that the role is so 

pervasive that it would be sound policy to promote an integrated approach that avoids 

fragmentation of procedures and responsibility. The commenter adds that “Congress might find 

appealing the benefit of having the Office of Compliance's inspection reports on the Library both 

for OSHA and ADA public access” for considering the cost of “correcting violations and 

anticipating remedial issues.” The comment therefore recommends that legislation be enacted to 

shift the remedial system for ADA public access matters, insofar as it concerns the Library, from 

private enforcement through court suits to enforcement through the Office of Compliance, as the 

Congress has provided for all other Capitol Hill entities. 

The comments recommended that the Library be placed under the labor-management provisions 

of the CAA. The comment stated that, together with the other recommendations, this would 

place the Library within a labor and employment law system administered by a single body, and 

the commenters underscored their belief in the long-term benefit of an integrated approach to 

employment matters (including labor-management relations) at the Library, under a common 

regulatory and enforcement office. 

With regard to the FMLA, the comments recommended that the Library remain under the 

provisions of the FMLA that apply in the executive branch, not those provisions that apply to the 

C-7
private sector. The Library stated that its pay and personnel officials have worked diligently to 

establish an administrative system for family and medical leave within the parameters of the 

general federal leave system, and they are concerned that a shift to private sector provisions of the 

FMLA would be administratively disruptive without serving a significant public purpose. The 

Library also recommended that the procedures of the Office of Compliance be applied to the 

resolution of any family and medical leave grievances at the Library. 

The Library also recommended that, if the Library is put under the Office of Compliance, it is 

imperative that legislation be enacted to permit the Department of Justice to continue to represent 

the Library for that purpose. The commenter added that the Library also must continue to have 

access to the GAO Judgment Fund for payment of claims against the Library. 

Another commenter, representing the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library, 

emphasized the “exclusive congressional support role” that CRS plays in serving Congress. Based 

on that role, the commenter recommends placing the CRS under the jurisdiction of the Office of 

Compliance, particularly with regard to the labor-management relations laws. The commenter 

stated that CRS is a legislative entity, that it is anomalous and raises separation-of-powers 

concerns for labor-relations issues involving CRS to be resolved by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, an agency in the executive branch, and that CRS should be treated the same as the 

other legislative entities on Capitol Hill. 

A Library official whose responsibility involves addressing the issues concerning persons with 

disabilities stated that there is a need for a comprehensive survey of Library staff to determine the 

number and types of disabilities among them and applying the authority given to other federal 

agencies to establish a selective placement program for qualified individuals with disabilities. 

Library Employee Representatives 

Two labor organizations representing Library employees recommended that application of the 

federal sector Labor-Management Relations statute to the Library be preserved, pointing to the 

number of cases filed with Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) and the agreements 

negotiated with the Library management since the FLRA jurisdiction began. The commenters 

stated that, “on balance, we believe the record of the FLRA clearly reflects an even-handed 

approach between the labor organizations and Library management.” The unions also stated that 

the CAA contains a number of provisions to fit a political environment, which have no bearing on 

employees of the Library, who do not engage in partisan politics. For example, the comment 

quoted from section 220(e)(1)(B), which requires the Board to exclude employees from coverage 

by labor-management laws if exclusion is required because of a conflict of interest or Congress’ 

constitutional responsibilities. One of the unions further stated that the Office of Compliance may 

be unable to handle the extra workload involved in assuming jurisdiction over Library matters 

because of a focus on congressional offices and limited resources. 

With regard to discrimination coverage at the Library, the comment urged that there be “extensive 

and thoughtful study” before making changes in the EEO laws. The comment cautions not to go 

C-8
from an “imperfect” system, which affords an investigation into EEO charges, to a system that 

lacks any investigatory component, like the procedures under CAA. After reviewing the Library’s 

proposal, one of these unions responded that the EEO procedures used in the executive branch 

“should govern at the Library of Congress, except that administrative appeal to the Office of 

Compliance should be substituted for appeal to the EEOC.” 

With respect to FMLA, union commenters recommended that coverage be retained under title 5, 

explaining their view that title 29 provides exemptions tailored to the private sector that are not 

appropriate to civil service employment. These commenters also stated that the right to sue for 

civil damages under title 29 (which would become available if the CAA provision takes effect) 

would be “a rather extraordinary remedy when extended to federal employees,” and that 

“administrative remedies that are typically available to federal employees would appear to be a 

more appropriate response to” an FMLA violation. 

With regard to OSHA, these commenters stated that the Library's Safety Services Office has “an 

active safety program” and the Joint Labor-Management Safety and Health Committee, whose 

existence is guaranteed by all three union agreements, is “unique in the federal government.” A 

union stated that it proposes no statutory changes to the applicable provisions of the CAA, and 

“strongly supports the efforts of the General Counsel’s Office of the Office of Compliance to 

apply OSHA standards to the Library of Congress and other legislative branch agencies.” The 

commenter also referred to the Library’s comment that the Architect’s role is so pervasive that an 

integrated approach should be promoted that avoids fragmentation of procedures and 

responsibilities, and the union expressed its belief that it would make sound public policy to 

establish a common procedure for both the Library and the Architect with respect to OSHA and 

the public access provisions of the ADA. 

A commenter representing the CRS bargaining unit urged that the Library not be placed under the 

labor-management provisions of the CAA. The comment stated that section 220(e) of the CAA 

requires the Board of the Office of Compliance to exclude from coverage any covered employee 

listed in section 220(e)(2) either because of a conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of 

interest or because of Congress’ constitutional responsibilities. The comment stated concern that 

“[i]f the Library and CRS were included under the CAA, then the Board may be compelled to 

exclude all employees in CRS from coverage of the labor relations program.” The comments 

stated that the result would be the complete decertification of the existing union at CRS. The 

commenter recommended keeping the Library under the jurisdiction of the FLRA because the 

current arrangement fully comports with the purpose and intent of the CAA and the application of 

the exemption under section 220(e) of the CAA could only move the Library away from the 

comprehensive scheme now in place. The commenter stated that the current system is 

comprehensive and effective, and it is beyond the directive of this study to recommend the 

implementation of a scheme that is “less comprehensive.” The commenter added that placing the 

Library and Congressional Research Service (CRS) within the CAA would be disruptive to labormanagement relations and would not improve either those relations or employee protections at 

the Library. Further, the nature and character of non-partisan employment and objective work 

C-9
product in CRS differs substantially from employment in the House or the Senate. 

Further, the commenter stated that the Library should not be covered under the congressional 

labor-management relations program because the Librarian is an officer of the United States, 

appointed by, and subject to the orders of, the President. In particular, the comment stated the 

“Librarian is vested with executive authority for copyright and other matters.” In addition, being 

subject to the federal labor-management program, the commenter stated, enables CRS analysts 

and attorneys to take positions adverse to members of Congress, because “[e]mployees who are 

protected by tenure are free to express objective opinions and conclusions without the fear of 

retaliation or retribution.” 

Library Employees 

An employee commenter expressed his concern about the lack of coverage in the antidiscrimination laws that apply to the Library regarding employment discrimination based on 

sexual orientation. There were several comments from individual employees regarding their 

individual cases. One Library employee commented regarding her own race discrimination 

complaint against the Library and her dissatisfaction regarding slowness in its processing. 

Another commenter charged that he had been discriminated against at the Library by the failure of 

the EEO office to investigate his charge that a second employee, who was a member of a minority 

group, engaged in allegedly racist conduct against the commenter, who is not a minority. Another 

employee commented on the failure of the Library to take into account the total length of all 

federal service (in both executive and legislative branches) for RIF purposes. 

Other Comment 

A nonprofit organization, which is concerned with advancing the interests of people who are blind 

or visually impaired, commented regarding the need for accessibility of facilities and information 

services, at all three instrumentalities, to individuals whose vision may be impaired. The 

commenter emphasized the importance of a consistent application of the ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines developed by federal agencies in consultation with blind and visually impaired 

consumers. Moreover, the commenter highlighted the need that information generated by pubic 

entities be made available in alternative, accessible formats, in addition to the ordinary printed 

format. 

C-10