U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–448 WASHINGTON : 2018

PREVENTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE 

CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE: EXAMINING REFORMS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 7, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chairman 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

(1) 

PREVENTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE 

CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE: EXAMINING 

REFORMS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Harper, Davis, Comstock, Walker, 

Smith, Loudermilk, Brady, Lofgren, and Raskin. 

Also Present: Representatives Byrne, Brooks, and Speier. 

Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; Kim Betz, Deputy 

Staff Director/Policy and Oversight; Katie Patru, Deputy Staff Director; Cole Felder, Deputy General Counsel; Dan Jarrell, Legislative Clerk; Erin McCracken, Communications Director; Jamie 

Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy 

Staff Director; Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk; and Teri Morgan, Minority Deputy General Counsel. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now call to order the Committee on House Administration for purposes of today’s hearing titled ‘‘Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Congressional Workplace: Examining Reforms to the Congressional Accountability Act.’’ 

The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days so 

members may submit any materials they wish to be included. 

A quorum is present, so we may proceed. 

I ask for unanimous consent that the Committee on Ethics 

Chairwoman Susan Brooks, Representative Jackie Speier, and Representative Bradley Byrne be afforded the opportunity to sit on the 

dais and question all of our witnesses today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

At the outset, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for taking time out of what I know are very busy schedules to be here. 

We are much appreciative of that. 

First and foremost, let me reiterate, there is no place for sexual 

harassment in our society, especially in Congress, period. And one 

case of sexual harassment is one case too many. 

The Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, tasked this Committee 

with heading up an extensive review on this issue, and we take 

that responsibility very seriously. As Members of Congress we 

must hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard that demVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:51 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 031448 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A448.XXX A448
2 

onstrates that we are worthy of the trust placed in us by the public, by our constituents, and by everyone in this country. 

Since our last hearing on November 14, additional accounts of 

sexual harassment have surfaced, and questions about the related 

settlements, both those authorized under the Congressional Accountability Act and outside that act, have been raised. 

These issues suggest not only that it is time, but it is appropriate 

for the Committee to review the policy goals of the Congressional 

Accountability Act, review the processes set out in the act, what we 

need to do to accomplish those policy goals, and evaluate the reforms needed to accomplish our collective goal, our bipartisan goal 

of zero tolerance. 

The Congressional Accountability Act has not been comprehensively reviewed since its enactment in 1995. The House took an important step forward last week in updating its policies and procedures by passing H. Res. 630. This resolution requires all House 

Members, officers, employees, including paid or unpaid interns, fellows and detailees to complete antiharassment and antidiscrimination training every year, as well as required all House offices to 

post a notice of employee rights and protections under the Congressional Accountability Act. 

The logical next step is to conduct a closer review of the Congressional Accountability Act to identify and evaluate what reforms are 

needed to ensure that we are protecting all congressional employees and workplaces. 

This hearing plays an important role in our Committee’s extensive review, and the insight from our witnesses today will help inform us and help us make those policy choices. 

I want to take this opportunity, again, to thank our Speaker, 

Paul Ryan, for tasking our Committee with this important issue. 

I would also like to thank the Ranking Member, Bob Brady, for his 

commitment to this issue and having the House work in a bipartisan matter. Not only is it essential, it is what people expect. 

I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today. And 

with that, I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, 

thank you for calling this hearing today and for the bipartisan 

manner by which you are approaching this issue. 

I also want to thank our witnesses, especially from the House 

Employment Counsel and the Office of Compliance. I appreciate 

the professional and nonpartisan way you approach your jobs, and 

I thank you for being here for a second time. 

The Congressional Accountability Act needs to be reformed. Since 

our last hearing, I have met with my colleagues and experts to better understand how we can improve this legislation. But most importantly, I have met with survivors of sexual harassment and assault. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to improve this process. But most importantly, we need to change the culture of this place, and that change 

must start with us. I hope this hearing helps us find some agreement on what we must do and help us better understand how we 

can reform the Congressional Accountability Act and give victims 

more confidence in the process and justice for the terrible experiVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:51 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 031448 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A448.XXX A448
3 

ence that they have endured. We owe it to our employees and the 

American people to get this right. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. And 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brady. 

Does any other member wish to be recognized for the purposes 

of an opening statement? 

The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. 

Comstock, for the purposes of an opening. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I appreciate your leadership and Ranking Member Brady and the bipartisan, bicameral nature with which we are approaching this. And 

I do really believe that this is a watershed moment, and we need 

to take this opportunity to really fundamentally change how we address this in Congress, but also beyond. 

I thank my colleagues, Jackie Speier and Bradley Byrne, who are 

also joining us today, and I believe Susan Brooks, Chairwoman of 

the Ethics Committee, will be joining us, too. 

Thirty years ago, a young woman, Dorena Bertussi, was the first 

victim of sexual harassment who brought this forward, highlighted 

this issue against a Member of Congress and prevailed in her case. 

She is here today and I want to welcome here and once again 

thank her for her courage and her perseverance and how gracefully 

she handled a terribly difficult situation then. 

And I think it is important that now, even though it is far too 

long, and it shouldn’t have been this long, that we do right by 

Dorena, but all the other people who are the people behind many 

of the headlines that we are seeing right now. 

We see often the offenders and certainly we want to know about 

sexual predators because we know sexual predators cross all party 

lines, their actions transcend any party labels. 

But we want to make sure that the victims are put first and foremost here, that we provide an advocate for them, whether it is a 

counsel or an ombudsman or some type of level playing field so the 

victims feel that we are protecting them, but also, more importantly, that we actually are, and that we make this a much more 

fair system, and also in that arena, how we address the nondisclosure agreements. 

We know the nondisclosure agreements are often preventing us 

from really knowing what is going on there, whether it is allowing 

people in the past here in Congress to be able to come forward 

without any fear of violating their nondisclosure agreements or 

how we address it in the public sector in general. 

I know there is legislation on that front too. So I think that is 

an important issue that we will need to address going forward. 

So thank you for the opportunity here to have these expert witnesses. And particularly the EEOC did a report last year, which I 

found very helpful in terms of they were talking about changing 

the culture and how we do that by permeating from the top down, 

from the bottom up, and that this really needs to be something 

where we are all engaged and involved. 

So thank you for the opportunity today to address this important 

issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

4 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Raskin, for the purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Mr. Brady, 

thank you both for convening this very important hearing. And I 

want to thank our colleagues, Representative Speier, who has been 

in the forefront of the new changes that we are making, Congressman Byrne, and I think, also, Representative Brooks is coming or 

on the way. 

We are in the middle, Mr. Chairman, of a dramatic culture shift 

that is a tribute to the women’s movement in the United States 

and also to the strong political democracy that it is part of here in 

our country. 

The public uproar over sexual harassment and sexual assault 

began in other places. It has rocketed across America. It came to 

the Halls of Congress and it has shaken this institution to the core. 

But I am pleased that this is a moment when we are restating 

our common bipartisan commitment to zero tolerance for sexual 

harassment into a safe, dignified, and equal workplace for everyone 

who comes to serve Congress. And we are doing this on a bipartisan basis. We are doing this on a comprehensive institutional 

basis. 

And I think that is the value that is being vindicated. This is a 

culture shift, much like ones Congress has gone through before. It 

used to be that lobbyists could give Members of Congress gifts and 

take them out for dinner and on fancy trips. And then there was 

a public uproar, a scandal. A rule has passed that banned it. And 

now it is unthinkable in this culture. 

It used to be that Members of Congress could pocket money from 

their campaign funds when they retired. And there was a scandal, 

public uproar, a rule against it, and it is unthinkable that anybody 

would do that today. 

We simply need to make sexual harassment something that is 

unthinkable, that just wouldn’t be done within these Halls. 

So that is the value. I think everybody agrees with it. What we 

need is a process that implements that value. And of course, the 

devil is in the details. We need rules that will strongly deter sexual 

harassment, and we need a process in place that will swiftly and 

fairly punish sexual harassment, address the situation of victims, 

and get to the facts of cases that are controverted until we really 

can move to a time when sexual harassment is simply no more in 

this body. 

But I am glad that we are all part of this, we are going through 

this process, which is obviously painful for some members of this 

institution. But we have to leave sexual harassment behind the 

way we have left other sordid practices behind. And I am proud 

that the House Committee on Administration is playing a leadership role there and that we have so many colleagues who have 

come to join us in that project. 

I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Anyone else have an opening statement? 

The Chair will now recognize Ms. Speier for the purposes of an 

opening statement. 

5 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I, too, applaud your 

efforts and the bipartisan manner in which we have undertaken 

this issue. To Ranking Member Brady, to my colleague Mrs. Comstock, and to my colleague, Mr. Byrne. 

I think we are at a watershed moment, as you said, Mr. Chairman. You know, I have been working on this issue for a very long 

time, long before I came to Congress, as a matter of fact. In the 

mid-1990s, I was chair of the Women’s Caucus in the State legislature, and we had a hearing on this issue. And we brought in Dr. 

Frances Conley, who was the first tenured neurosurgeon in the 

United States, and she was a professor at Stanford University. And 

she wrote a book called ‘‘Walking Out on the Boys,’’ and talked 

about the horrific environment in which she had to work as a professional in academia and as a medical professional. 

Of course, the Anita Hill hearings of 1992 was also a watershed 

issue and time when it was called the Year of the Woman. Well, 

it was 1 year, and that, frankly, was not enough. 

So what we have experienced over the last many decades is that 

there has been a return to the status quo, which is woefully unacceptable. We all recognize now that the Office of Compliance is 

mandated to do things that really hurt the victim. It is not that 

they do it by choice, it is because that is how it is mandated in the 

Congressional Accountability Act. 

H.R. 4396, which some of you have cosponsored, it now has over 

110 cosponsors, it is Republicans and Democrats alike, it is the ME 

TOO Congress Act, which attempts to do the job of reforming the 

Office of Compliance. I don’t think it goes far enough. 

And as we continue to talk about this issue, I think we need to 

recognize that probably the House Ethics Committee or the House 

Administration Committee is not the venue to which investigations 

should be sent when a complaint is filed about sexual harassment. 

There needs to be an independent investigation. 

Now, some have said: Well, how about the due process? And I 

would say, you know, there is due process here, and if we allow 

this independent agency or entity to do the review and make a recommendation to the House, that that would provide it. 

I do think that we have to recognize that behavior like this is 

normally not just one incident. Normally it is a pattern of behavior. 

And I think we have got to make sure that however we move forward, that we are victim-centric. We have to recognize that many 

of these victims, one of whom sat in my office crying, said to me 

going through this process was worse than the sexual harassment 

itself. Shame on us for not having addressed this sooner. 

But I want us to remember a young woman who came to this 

building, who worked in a number of offices. And it was in her second office where she filed a complaint for sexual harassment. 

She is no longer here. Her career was over. She was told her career would be over if she filed a complaint. And she hasn’t worked 

since. 

We have got to make sure that the victims have the opportunity 

to stay here and work. They have a right to be able to work in 

these hallowed halls. Just because they were pawed by a colleague 

of ours or by a staff member is not a reason to then, if they file 

a complaint, to ostracize them. 

6 

So as we talk about this, I hope that we redouble our efforts to 

make sure that we are protecting the victim and that we are making sure there is a soft landing for them so they can continue to 

pursue a career in public service. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker, for purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be part of this Committee. And I think it says much that 

the Speaker has chosen your leadership and this Committee to 

handle a sensitive, but very important matter. 

I think about the bravery of all the victims that have stepped forward. I believe Congresswoman Speier is exactly right, there is a 

pattern to this behavior, certainly much of the time. But it usually 

takes a champion or someone to step forward to begin to break 

through some of that, who is willing to come out. And we actually 

have one of those leaders in this courageous movement, Gretchen 

Carlson, with us today. So I just want to acknowledge her bravery 

over the last couple years in being a leader in this movement. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Any other person wishes to be recognized for the purpose of an 

opening statement? 

I would now like to introduce our witnesses. 

First, Victoria Lipnic was appointed as Acting Chair of the U.S. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by President Trump 

on January the 25th, 2017. Before becoming the Acting Chair, 

Lipnic served as the Commissioner. 

Acting Chair Lipnic has extensive experience working with Federal labor and employment laws, holding positions such as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards and Workforce Policy Counsel to the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Acting Chair Lipnic has also worked in the private sector as 

counsel to the firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP in its Washington, D.C., office. 

We welcome you, Ms. Lipnic. 

I would also like to introduce Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive 

Director, Office of Compliance. Ms. Grundmann serves as Chief Operating Officer for the Office of Compliance, which was established 

to ensure the integrity of the Congressional Accountability Act of 

1995 through programs of dispute resolution, education, and enforcement. 

Ms. Grundmann also works with the Office of Compliance board 

of directors to advise Congress on needed changes and amendments 

to the Congressional Accountability Act. 

Previously, Ms. Grundmann served as the Chairman of the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, enforcing Federal merit systems 

in the executive branch. She was confirmed to that position by the 

U.S. Senate in 2009. 

Ms. Grundmann has more than 20 years of professional experience in litigation and in advising and educating clients in labor and 

7 

employment matters. She began her legal career as a law clerk to 

the judges of the 19th Judicial Circuit of Virginia. 

Welcome, Ms. Grundmann. 

Ms. Gloria Lett currently serves as Counsel to the Office of 

House Employment Counsel. Prior to serving as Counsel, Ms. Lett 

was a corporate attorney handling employment law issues and litigation for a large telecommunications company. 

She also served as an Assistant Corporation Counsel representing the District of Columbia in civil litigation, as a Special 

Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia handling criminal prosecutions, and as an attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

We welcome you, Ms. Lett. 

Dan Crowley has served as counsel to the firm K&L Gates in the 

firm’s Washington D.C. office since 2008. Prior to joining K&L 

Gates, for 5 years Mr. Crowley was chief government affairs officer 

at the Investment Company Institute, the national association of 

the mutual fund industry. 

Previously, Mr. Crowley was vice president and managing director of the Office of Government Relations at NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. 

Mr. Crowley’s earlier employment includes Counsel to this Committee, the Committee on House Administration; also the Committee on House Oversight and the office of Speaker Newt Gingrich. 

We welcome you, Mr. Crowley. 

The Committee has received each of your written testimonies, 

and you will each now have 5 minutes to present a summary of 

that submission. Of course, most of you have testified before or 

seen that, so you have the clock in front of you that will help you 

keep up with your time. It will be green for 4 minutes, then it will 

turn yellow for the last minute, and red means that your time has 

expired. 

So, the Chair now recognizes our witnesses for the purpose of the 

opening statement, beginning with EEOC Acting Chair Lipnic. 

Thank all four of you for being here today. 

STATEMENTS OF VICTORIA A. LIPNIC, ACTING CHAIR, EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; SUSAN TSUI 

GRUNDMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE; GLORIA LETT, COUNSEL, OFFICE OF HOUSE EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL; AND DANIEL F.C. CROWLEY, PARTNER, K&L 

GATES LLP 

STATEMENT OF VICTORIA A. LIPNIC 

Ms. LIPNIC. Thank you so much. 

Chairman Harper, Ranking Member Brady, Members of the 

Committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today about a subject that for weeks now has consumed headlines—sexual harassment—but certainly something 

that we at the EEOC have known to be far too common and which 

is only now being fully brought into the light. 

Since early October, when news of what was then simply known 

as the Weinstein scandal broke, the issue of sexual harassment has 

8 

dominated the Nation’s collective conversation. I am pleased to add 

my voice to that dialogue this morning. 

By way of introduction, as the chairman said, I am Vicky Lipnic. 

I am the Acting Chair of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission. I have served as a Commissioner of the EEOC for the 

last 71⁄2 years, and President Trump designated me Acting Chair 

in January of this year. 

When I first joined the EEOC in 2010, I was struck by the number of harassment complaints the agency would see every year, the 

cases we would litigate, and the egregious behaviors we were addressing on behalf of victims of harassment. 

I had a conversation with our then-Chair, the late Jackie 

Berrien, who asked me to dig deeper into this issue. I spoke with 

every one of our district directors around the country and each of 

our regional attorneys. I was astonished but also deeply concerned 

that to a person I was told the same thing. The EEOC could, if it 

wanted to, have a docket consisting of nothing but harassment 

cases generally and sexual harassment cases specifically. 

This fact and a concern on a leadership level with the persistence 

and pervasiveness of the harassment claims we at the EEOC continue to see led to the establishment of the Select Task Force on 

the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, an outside group of experts that the EEOC convened following a public Commission 

meeting on workplace harassment in January 2015. I was honored 

to co-chair the select task force alongside my Democratic colleague, 

Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who joins me in the hearing room 

today. 

The goal of creating the task force was to see if we could find 

new, innovative ways to address workplace harassment. We wanted to speak to and reinforce the work of prevention, not just address as an enforcement agency viability issues. The task force included members of both the management and plaintiff’s bar, organized labor and trade associations, academics, including social scientists, compliance experts, and worker advocates. 

Our work concluded in June 2016 with the release of the final 

co-chair’s report, almost 30 years to the day after the United States 

Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, in which it held for the first time that sexual 

harassment was a form of unlawful sex discrimination. We took 

away a number of top-line lessons learned through the study of the 

task force which I would take this opportunity to share. 

First, workplace harassment remains a persistent problem. Almost fully one-third of the approximately 90,000 charges received 

by the EEOC in fiscal year 2015 included an allegation of harassment. This includes charges of harassment on the basis of sex, 

race, disability, age, ethnicity, national origin, color, and religion. 

Second, workplace harassment, particularly sexual harassment, 

too often goes unreported. In fact, the least common response to 

harassment is for an employee to take some formal action, either 

to report the harassment internally or file a formal legal complaint. 

These employees may not report harassing behavior because they 

fear disbelief or inaction on their claim, blame, or social or professional retaliation. 

9 

Third, an effective antiharassment effort must start at the top, 

and leadership and accountability are crucial. This cannot be overstated. Effective prevention efforts and workplace culture in which 

harassment is not tolerated must start at the highest level of management and an organization must have systems in place that hold 

employees accountable for this expectation. 

Finally, training must change. Much of the training done over 

the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool. It has been 

too focused on simply avoiding legal liability. We believe effective 

training can reduce workplace harassment, but even that cannot 

occur in a vacuum. It must be part of a holistic culture of nonharassment. 

And one size does not fit all. Training is most effective when tailored to the specific workplace and to different cohorts of employees. 

I understand that the Committee is contemplating changes to 

procedures designed to address workplace harassment in the legislative branch. I am happy to offer my thoughts on these proposals. 

In the interest of giving the Committee full background, my written testimony includes a lengthy discussion of the EEOC’s procedures with respect to discrimination charges in both the private 

and Federal sectors. 

I would also commend to the Committee a set of promising practices for preventing and combating workplace harassment that the 

EEOC recently published on our website and which have been provided to Committee staff. 

In closing, I reiterate a key finding of our task force report: No 

system of training, monitoring, or reporting is likely to succeed in 

preventing harassment in the absence of genuine and public buyin from the very top levels of an organization. We can and we must 

do better in all of our workplaces. 

I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. And as you 

said, Mr. Chairman, I am a former House staffer myself, so I am 

very familiar with working in the legislative branch. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Lipnic follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 28 here 31448A.001
11 


Insert offset folio 29 here 31448A.002
12 


Insert offset folio 30 here 31448A.003
13 


Insert offset folio 31 here 31448A.004
14 


Insert offset folio 32 here 31448A.005
15 


Insert offset folio 33 here 31448A.006
16 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Lipnic. 

The Chair will now recognize Ms. Grundmann for the purposes 

of her opening statement. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brady, and distinguished Members of this Committee and 

guests. On behalf of the Office of Compliance and our entire board 

of directors who join me here today, thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss our process and our concerns. We support and commend 

the efforts of this Committee and the Members of Congress for 

mandating workplace rights training for everyone and notice posting of those rights. 

Over the last 6 weeks we have seen a triple-digit-percentage increase in the number of requests for in-person sexual harassment 

prevention training, a triple-digit-percentage increase in the number of staffers enrolling in our online training module, twice as 

many visits to our online information about how to report sexual 

harassment, a 12 percent surge in the number of people subscribing to our social media platforms to receive updates on rights 

and protections. And I am happy to report that posters notifying 

employees of their rights are flying off our shelf, with reorders arriving late last week. 

These numbers tell us something. They mean that people are finally taking seriously a problem about which we have been sounding the alarm and have been proactively working to combat for 

years through our outreach and education program. 

However, mandatory training and posters are the floor, not the 

ceiling. And even though Chair Lipnic notes in her statement that 

the training in the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention 

tool, we have over 20 years of nonmandatory training, and here we 

are today. 

To reach the ceiling, not only should our process change, which 

we hope to discuss with you today, but as the chairman noted previously, publicly and forcefully, that the culture must change. 

And that cultural shift includes not just changes to our process, 

but a shift, a policy, a sexual harassment prevention policy that is 

currently not mandated under the law. That policy should include 

examples of what constitutes harassment, reporting procedures, 

standards of conduct, investigations at the appropriate level, and 

accountability. 

This discussion is proof that the members of this Committee in 

this watershed moment are focusing on an issue and validating our 

efforts to help build a strong culture of collegial respect. 

Let me note, media reports have portrayed us as opaque, Byzantine, shrouded in secrecy. And while we understand that these 

comments are directed at our process and not to us as individuals, 

these comments, nonetheless, sully the reputations of the 20 

women and men who faithfully report to our office every day for 

work, including our occupational health and safety inspectors who 

examine the Capitol Grounds for hazards in public access; including our Deputy Executive Director, who trained 500 people in person over the last 6 weeks, and not all at once, but in ones and twos 

17 

and tens; and including our only alternative dispute resolution 

counselor, who meets with employees at the beginning of the process to hear their stories, to advise them of their rights, and to comfort them in their distress. 

This is the process that Congress designed in 1995, a process 

that not only demands confidentiality, but strict confidentiality 

under the law, a system we have been tasked to administer, a process that Congress is now seeking to change, and a change that we 

welcome. And we hope that we will play an integral role. 

Many call this a moment of reckoning. We call it a moment of 

clarity, a clarity with respect to not what we do, but what we do 

under the Congressional Accountability Act. 

And as you deliberate, we ask that you bear in mind that this 

is a new day, not just for Congress, but throughout the legislative 

community. The changes that you propose and implement should 

and must apply beyond the halls of Congress and to our entire legislative community. 

During this time, our office stands ready and we will roll up our 

sleeves to assist you in the important work ahead. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Grundmann follows:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 38 here 31448A.007
19 


Insert offset folio 39 here 31448A.008
20 


Insert offset folio 40 here 31448A.009
21 


Insert offset folio 41 here 31448A.010
22 


Insert offset folio 42 here 31448A.011
23 


Insert offset folio 43 here 31448A.012
24 


Insert offset folio 44 here 31448A.013
25 


Insert offset folio 45 here 31448A.014
26 


Insert offset folio 46 here 31448A.015
27 


Insert offset folio 47 here 31448A.016
28 


Insert offset folio 48 here 31448A.017
29 


Insert offset folio 49 here 31448A.018
30 


Insert offset folio 50 here 31448A.019
31 


Insert offset folio 51 here 31448A.020
32 


Insert offset folio 52 here 31448A.021
33 


Insert offset folio 53 here 31448A.022
34 


Insert offset folio 54 here 31448A.023
35 


Insert offset folio 55 here 31448A.024
36 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Grundmann, for your testimony. 

We look forward to asking you some questions soon. 

And we will now recognize Ms. Lett, Counsel for the Office of 

House Employment Counsel. 

Welcome, Ms. Lett. 

STATEMENT OF GLORIA LETT 

Ms. LETT. Good morning. I want to thank the Committee on 

House Administration for inviting me for a second time to give testimony on the issue of preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. This testimony will supplement the written testimony that 

I submitted to the Committee earlier this week. 

I want to start by referring to an opinion piece I read on the 

cover of The Washington Post yesterday. It was entitled, ‘‘I Was 

Sexually Harassed. Question My Story.’’ It was written by a woman 

named Karissa Fenwick. 

In the article, Ms. Fenwick tells her story of how she was sexually harassed. She goes on to say, ‘‘Question my story because we 

need to examine our views about sexual harassment and misconduct.’’ And, she said, ‘‘By their nature, harassment complaints 

are characterized by gray areas and few witnesses. Victims and 

perpetrators are both flawed and sympathetic.’’ 

I thought it was important to read Ms. Fenwick’s language because it captures, better than I probably could ever do, the challenges my office faces in our role as counsel for the employing offices on these issues. I read her words to mean that there has to 

be discussion and understanding around these issues. And when I 

say ‘‘these issues,’’ I mean allegations of discrimination. 

Sexual harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination, just like 

discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, 

and disability. 

I also read her words to mean that automatically characterizing 

any questions about the basis for sexual harassment allegations as 

victim blaming is counterproductive to rooting out sexual harassment, and I agree. Part of the role of my office is to question employees’ claims of discrimination, including sexual harassment, and 

to do so is not victim blaming. 

On a personal note, like most women in this country, I have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. It occurred during 

the early part of my employment, and my way of dealing with it 

was to leave a job that I liked. 

As a woman of color, I have also experienced race discrimination 

in the workplace. I worked for a private company where a White 

manager brought in a whip, which he prominently displayed in his 

office. And when questioned about it, he said he wanted to, quote, 

unquote, motivate the black employees. 

I believe these and other experiences have made me more sensitive to allegations of discrimination, not less. And I am probably 

a better lawyer for it because I understand the perspective of both 

the employee and the employer. I also try to lead by example as 

the head of my office. 

Posing difficult and challenging questions to employees, most 

often through their lawyers, is necessary to assess whether sexual 

37 

harassment has occurred and correcting any inappropriate behavior. 

On the other side of that equation, when we are contacted about 

these issues, which unfortunately does not happen in all instances, 

and our clients tell us that they have done absolutely nothing 

wrong, we question that, too. We are not in the business of covering up unlawful behavior, but rather, we examine those gray 

areas that I mentioned earlier by conducting thorough investigations and then working with our clients to figure out how to address the concern both legally and practically. 

The congressional workplace is a microcosm and in many ways 

reflects workplaces across the America. Yes, sexual harassment occurs in the Congress, just like it does in other workplaces, and 

while the more serious allegations of sexual harassment, and borderline criminal behavior in some instances, tends to receive the 

most attention from the media, those types of allegations are not 

the norm on Capitol Hill, at least not in my office’s collective experience. And, of course, I recognize that this kind of behavior does 

go unreported, so that may account for some of that. 

I want to try to answer the question of what has worked to address the concern about sexual harassment. I wish there was an 

easy answer, but there is not. Although it is not a panacea, I believe mandatory in-person training is very helpful. I have trained 

quite a few Members on this issue lately, and the response has 

been encouraging. I am hopeful that the training has meant that 

Members are talking directly with their employees and telling 

them that they should come forward with concerns without fear of 

retaliation. 

Employees won’t always believe it, but this is still a positive step 

and it might help to change a perception held by some that these 

issues should not be reported. 

I will say that training does work effectively, but it doesn’t work 

effectively when Members schedule it around or near votes. 

While I am convinced that no amount of training will fix truly 

egregious conduct, that will require other mechanisms of accountability, again, it is a step in the right direction. 

In closing, I want to thank the Committee again, and I welcome 

your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Lett follows:] 

38 


Insert offset folio 61 here 31448A.025
39 


Insert offset folio 62 here 31448A.026
40 


Insert offset folio 63 here 31448A.027
41 


Insert offset folio 64 here 31448A.028
42 


Insert offset folio 65 here 31448A.029
43 


Insert offset folio 66 here 31448A.030
44 


Insert offset folio 67 here 31448A.031
45 


Insert offset folio 68 here 31448A.032
46 


Insert offset folio 69 here 31448A.033
47 


Insert offset folio 70 here 31448A.034
48 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lett. 

The Chair will now recognize Daniel Crowley for 5 minutes for 

the purposes of an opening. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL F.C. CROWLEY 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. Chairman Harper, Ranking Member 

Brady, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Dan Crowley. I am a partner at the law firm of K&L 

Gates. I note at the outset that my comments are my own and do 

not represent the views of the firm, my colleagues, or any firm clients. 

I had the privilege of serving as counsel to the Committee under 

Congressman Bill Thomas from March 1991 through early 1998, a 

period that straddled the Republican revolution of 1994. The Congressional Accountability Act was the first law enacted by the new 

Republican Congress in 1995. 

However, it is important to note that these are not fundamentally partisan issues. Rather, they are institutional in nature. In 

fact, the Committee’s consideration of this legislation began under 

the previous Democratic majority. 

The basic principles that in the past guided the Committee in 

this area are, one, if a law is right for the private sector, it is right 

for Congress; two, Congress will write better laws when it has to 

live by the same laws it imposes on the private sector and executive branch; and three, the separation of powers embodied in the 

Constitution must be respected. 

The challenge faced by the Committee more than two decades 

ago was to reconcile these principles. At that time it was felt that 

the procedures established to provide a means for redress of grievances by employees must take into consideration that in the congressional context allegations can be career-ended, even if they 

subsequently prove to be untrue. 

The key constitutional provision at issue is the Speech or Debate 

Clause, which has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as providing immunity for Members of Congress for 

not only speech or debate in either House, but also for other matters that the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either 

House. Moreover, lower courts have ruled that Speech or Debate 

Clause immunity attaches to employment decisions by Members in 

certain circumstances. 

Against this constitutional backdrop, the Committee sought to 

establish a procedure to address violations of the Federal labor and 

employment laws by Members of Congress. Toward that end, the 

CAA provided for the creation of the Office of Compliance within 

the legislative branch and charged it with responsibility for promulgating implementing regulations, conducting studies, and, importantly, carrying out a program for educating employing authorities. 

Perhaps the most significant provisions in the CAA provide for 

a right of limited judicial review. However, the CAA was carefully 

crafted to avoid waiver of Speech or Debate Clause immunity. For 

example, Section 502 provides: ‘‘It shall not be a violation of any 

49 

employment discrimination provision to consider the party affiliation, domicile, or political compatibility with the employing office.’’ 

In other words, such factors provide an affirmative defense to allegations of discrimination. 

As described in the Committee report: ‘‘This provision and the 

exemptions listed therein recognize the special nature of employment in Congress by allowing Member offices, as well as Committee and leadership offices, to incorporate these three factors in 

employment decisions without prejudice to the legality of such decisions. ‘‘The political compatibility exemption, while subject to broad 

interpretation, is intended to provide Members, Committee offices, 

and leadership offices with more flexibility than is available under 

the party affiliation and domicile exemptions.’’ 

The jurisprudence since enactment of the CAA makes clear that 

in employment cases in which Speech or Debate Clause immunity 

is asserted, it will be up to the courts to determine whether the 

privilege applies on a case-by-case basis. I note that notwithstanding the CAA, the Committee on Ethics has broad discretion 

to discipline Members for violating standards of official conduct, 

which may provide another meaningful avenue to explore as the 

Committee of considers solutions in this area. 

In conclusion, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 is 

legislation that attempted to reconcile Member intent to subject 

themselves to the same laws they impose on others, consistent with 

the legitimate constitutional protections afforded by the Speech or 

Debate Clause. 

After more than two decades, it is important to review the CAA 

as well as the standards of official conduct to determine whether 

updates are necessary or appropriate. These are complicated issues 

that remain difficult to resolve. 

That said, the steps the Committee took more than two decades 

ago mean that you now have experts, including my fellow panelists, 

who are available to ensure that employing authorities are appropriately advised. 

Finally, I believe today, as I did then, that a commitment to taking prompt corrective action, up to and including termination, must 

be unequivocal. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Crowley follows:] 

50 


Insert offset folio 76 here 31448A.035
51 


Insert offset folio 77 here 31448A.036
52 


Insert offset folio 78 here 31448A.037
53 


Insert offset folio 79 here 31448A.038
54 


Insert offset folio 80 here 31448A.039
55 


Insert offset folio 81 here 31448A.040
56 


Insert offset folio 82 here 31448A.041
57 


Insert offset folio 83 here 31448A.042
58 


Insert offset folio 84 here 31448A.043
59 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. 

We now have time for Committee Members to ask questions of 

the witnesses. Each member will be allotted 5 minutes to question 

a witness or witnesses. And I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

And I will start, if I may, with you, Ms. Lipnic. I certainly appreciate you being here today and the work that you have done in this 

area of sexual harassment and antiharassment generally. 

I want to focus on your work for a moment as co-chair of the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. The 

EEOC has created a document entitled ‘‘Promising Practices for 

Preventing Harassment’’ identifying five core principles around 

which prudent practices are identified. 

Can you give us a little insight as to what practices would constitute an effective sexual harassment education program? And in 

your opinion, of that, what have you seen that works or doesn’t 

work? 

Ms. LIPNIC. Certainly. And I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, that 

the promising practices that are on our website are completely derived from our task force report, in the recommendations that we 

made in the task force report. 

So there are five core principles that we think are important for 

preventing harassment. And again, our task force was focused on 

prevention. At our very first meeting of our task force, we all 

agreed that we all know what is legally actionable harassment, but 

that is not working as a prevention tool. So we focused on five 

things. 

One is there has to be committed and engaged leadership, there 

has to be consistent and demonstrated accountability within an organization, there has to be strong and comprehensive harassment 

policies in place, trusted and accessible complaint procedures—and 

I would emphasize trusted procedures—and regular and interactive 

training that is tailored to the audience and to the organization. 

And as I said earlier, we were very critical of training, much of 

the training that has taken place and developed over the last 30 

years, as a prevention tool. But we do not by any means reject 

training as a tool. We believe that training is absolutely necessary. 

And what Ms. Lett referred to, in particular, and she said in-person training, can make a big difference. 

So we have a number of recommendations about training. That 

it has to be customized to that particular workplace. The leadership of the organization has to show up for it and demonstrate that 

they are interested in it. It has to give examples to that particular 

workplace. 

And it is very important in training that individuals in the workplace focus on training, not even so much as what is harassment 

and what isn’t, what are the procedures by which people can report, they know who to go to, they know what the consequences 

will be, what will happen. That is an important component of the 

training as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. So this is not going to be effective or as effective 

unless the person at the top—— 

Ms. LIPNIC. Absolutely. 

60 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Says this is going to be the way that 

it will be. 

Ms. LIPNIC. Yes. And I have spoken on this in many places. And 

you will oftentimes here, in particular, outside counsel who are 

called in to do trainings at corporations, and the head of the business unit or the organization will show up for the very beginning 

of the training and say, ‘‘I want you all to pay attention to this,’’ 

and then leave. 

And so, you know, the leadership of the organization has to be 

as committed to it and as engaged in that training and send the 

message to the individuals who are receiving that training. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

If I could now, Ms. Lett, I would like to ask you a couple of questions in the time that I have left. 

Would you describe OHEC’s role in the counseling or mediation 

phases? And specifically, is OHEC retained by an employing office 

when counseling is initiated or when mediation begins, or does 

OHEC already have an attorney-client relationship with the House 

office prior to being notified of a CAA claim? 

Ms. LETT. I am going to give you a lawyerly response, and that 

is, it depends. In many instances we will know when a complaint 

is coming down the pike, and that is because the employing office 

has contacted us. There has been an employee who is dissatisfied 

with something that is going on in the workplace. They have attached it to a discriminatory motive. And we work with the office 

to try to address the situation. 

Sometimes an employee will have an employment performance 

issue. They have been put in a performance improvement plan. 

That hasn’t worked out. The employee is terminated. And so we 

work with the office through that entire process and anticipate that 

when the employee loses his or her job that they are going to go 

to the Office of Compliance. 

We anticipate that. We don’t know when someone has gone to 

the Office of Compliance initially for the counseling phase, because 

that is confidential unless the employee waives it. 

When mediation is requested, then we would be notified automatically. Again, we might know about that ahead of time that it 

is coming down the pike or for the first time when we get the notice of mediation. And of course, at the mediation phase we represent the employing office and attempt to resolve the matter at 

that point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Brady for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For Gloria Lett, of all the cases you handle, how much of your 

work is focused on sexual harassment? 

Ms. LETT. I anticipated that question. And I have a list here in 

terms of the number of cases and the categories in which they 

occur. We typically see mostly retaliation cases because when employees file claims they always put in a—well, always—they routinely will include a retaliation claim. 

Followed by retaliation is the Americans with Disabilities Act 

claims, race claims, Fair Labor Standards Act claims, age, Family 

61 

and Medical Leave Act. And sex discrimination, gender discrimination cases come in at about the same rate. It is followed by sexual 

harassment claims, pregnancy claims, national origin, and military 

discrimination claims come at about the same rate. And then finally, claims based on color. 

Mr. BRADY. Do you support eliminating the cooling-off period? 

Ms. LETT. I don’t have a strong position on that one way or the 

other. My only caution about eliminating that 30-day period is that 

oftentimes we do settle cases during that period. So it would take 

away another opportunity to possibly resolve a case before a party 

goes directly into litigation. 

Mr. BRADY. In your advocacy for employment offices, do you find 

that just your engagement, the engagement that you are engaged 

with, changes office behavior in the future? 

Ms. LETT. I think it is difficult for us to know to a certainty 

whether that is happening, but it has been reported back to us that 

when there has been an incident of some kind or some allegation 

of discrimination and an office speaks with us and tries to take appropriate action, we do action items, after-action items with the office. 

That might involve training for a particular individual. It might 

involve training for the entire staff. It might mean, in some instances, and not all House employing offices have written policies, 

so it might mean sitting with them, adopting those policies, rolling 

those policies out with the employees, and having conversations 

going forward. 

So I do think that there is a lot of positive that comes out of 

some of these situations. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. 

And for Mr. Crowley, thank you for your service on the Committee, and I understand you worked with my former counsel, 

Charlie Howell. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRADY. Who was a real gift to the members of this Committee in drafting the CAA. 

Why did Congress exclude the Library of Congress from some of 

these protections? Was that a mistake? And should we fix that and 

include now the Library of Congress? 

Mr. CROWLEY. You know, Congressman, I have to tell you that 

my recollection of these issues is now 22 years old, and so I don’t 

remember every discussion we have. 

Mr. BRADY. I can appreciate that, sir. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Yeah. I do recall a number of conversations involving the Library, including whether the police forces ought to be 

unified. I don’t remember the specific discussion about the Library, 

although I think the answer might be, and I would defer to my colleagues, that they were already covered to a certain extent under 

Federal law, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Perhaps I can provide a little insight. The Library of Congress does have its internal personnel system, but that 

system is entirely internal. There is a hearing process in the Library of Congress, but the hearing officer’s decision is merely a recVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:51 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 031448 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A448.XXX A448
62 

ommended decision. It must be forwarded to the Librarian, where 

she can either accept or reject that decision. 

Mr. BRADY. Do you think we should include the Library of Congress in this ongoing hearing and discussion and maybe a bill? 

Mr. GRUNDMANN. We do. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. 

Ms. Lipnic, in the June 16 report you write about the risk factors 

in the workforce. Among them are many young workers in offices 

with significant power disparities. Congress is obviously a dramatic 

example of both of those risk factors. We passed a resolution focused on training recently, but no one believes that training is 

enough. 

And this hearing is about improving our laws, and that is important, but it is also not enough. We really need to change the culture. 

So based upon your experience, beyond providing training and 

changing laws, what other work can we do to change that culture? 

Ms. LIPNIC. Thank you, Mr. Brady. 

One important point that I think the Committee should consider 

as you are looking particularly at revising the Congressional Accountability Act, and I would look to the testimony from Congresswoman Speier from your November hearing: There is a difference 

between what immediate action has to be taken when someone is 

concerned and complains that they are being sexually harassed 

versus what is all of the process that the Office of Compliance 

deals with and the House Employment Counsel when you are looking to is there liability. 

And so as Representative Speier said, you have to be concerned 

about what is happening to that person who has complained about 

it when she is still sitting there in that workplace. 

So I would urge you to sort of bifurcate your thinking on this and 

understand that that immediate action and that investigation that 

has to take place, which I think that the House Employment Counsel, I understand from the testimony, does a lot of that, you should 

consider how detailed can you be and how can you instruct your 

work environment as to how you want to deal with those immediate issues of harassment. 

Think of harassment claims different from other types of discrimination claims. So it is one thing to allege you did not get promoted to a particular job in an office based on your sex. That is 

very different than a harassment complaint and a harassment 

claim. 

And so the immediate investigation that has to take place, which 

may be referred to the House Employment Counsel’s office, or 

maybe the Office of Compliance does that, I would urge you to 

think about what is that process and what is that type of corrective 

action that is taken immediately. 

That, again, is very different from all of the other process that 

is in place that determines is there liability here. So that is one 

thing that I would urge you to think about. 

And your focus on culture is very much what our select task force 

spent a great deal of time on. And there are a number of things 

that will influence a culture, again, including what is the message 

that is being sent from the top and is the leadership of the organiVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:51 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 031448 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A448.XXX A448
63 

zation owning each individual workplace. And of course workplaces 

in Congress, you have a lot of—as you mentioned, the number of 

risk factors—you have a lot of young people, you have people working in very close quarters, you have people working very long 

hours. 

I think there is a recommendation maybe in one of the bills that 

you do a culture—a climate survey. Those are things that you can 

also consider and make sure that you are reviewing those things 

on a regular basis. 

But culture and the message that is sent from the leadership and 

the engagement within each individual office to address that are 

very important factors and can do the most to act as a prevention 

tool. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses for being here 

and for your testimony, very important and educated testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brady. The gentleman yields 

back. 

The Chair will now recognize the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all of our panelists. 

Ms. Lett, it is great to see you here again. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

To begin, I believe an important takeaway from our previous 

hearing is the need for the OOC and OHEC to become more familiar with the policies and procedures not only of the workings of 

both of your organizations but, really, how the Ethics Committee 

process work as well. I also encourage more outreach to the Hill 

in general so you have a sense of how best we can all work together 

to serve and improve this great institution. 

I want to focus my questions today, though, on Ms. Grundmann, 

and I really want to focus on OOC’s outreach to the Hill. 

Your testimony discusses the need for new employees to receive 

training. How is the OOC currently reaching new employees with 

this information? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. We have a very unique mandate. In fact, we 

are compelled to train on our statute by the law. And it is a very 

robust program, for a very small office, that is administered largely 

by two people. 

As I stated in my opening statement, 500 people have been 

trained in person in the last 6 weeks. Our online training module 

has soared in recent times, and here is an example: In September, 

five people completed the online training module for sexual harassment prevention training. In October, it was 618. In November, it 

was over 4,000, with 800 people arriving just last week. 

So, in addition to this type of training, we are developing new 

training. Coming on December 10 is a new comprehensive online 

module that talks about anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, antiretaliation. In production right now is an overview orientation of 

the Congressional Accountability Act. We have a new module coming up, as well, that will focus on how to report sexual harassment, 

how to respond to sexual harassment, and behaviors that could 

lead to sexual harassment. 

64 

In addition, let’s talk about new employees. We don’t know who 

these new employees are. We would love to be notified as to when 

new people are onboarded so that we can communicate with them 

directly—— 

Mr. DAVIS. So let me get this straight. There is no contact between our office of—our payroll office here at the House of Representatives and your office when a new employee comes on board? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. 

You mentioned in your testimony, too, you wanted to reach more 

younger staffers. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are you seeing the younger staffers taking these 

training modules that you just mentioned in the last few months? 

Or do you show by age—and how are you going to reach more 

younger staffers? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Well, let me answer that question. We don’t 

know exactly the age or the person that is taking the module; we 

just know the hits that we are receiving. 

What we could explore doing—and we could do it with this committee and the members of this panel—is a particular module designed specifically for new employees and younger employees. They 

do face different issues. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. I think it is a great point that there probably 

needs to be more communication between our offices that are run 

by the CAO and the OOC to make sure that those modules are out 

there and the training is in. 

I also think it is important that we develop training for senior 

managers, because they are going to be the first ones that an employee will go to to address the process, and I think our senior 

managers need to know a little bit more about the process. How 

can we address that? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Well, there is actually a module in place right 

now on anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation 

that actually meets the standards for managers in the Senate. It 

is a resolution that passed recently. So it is there already. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, excellent. 

And, in your testimony, you talked about how you hope to 

strengthen OOC and your outreach programs. We look forward to 

working with you to do that. 

I do want to point out that the author of the Congressional Accountability Act, our former colleague, Chris Shays, is in the audience today. 

And thank you for your work on this, Congressman Shays. 

I do want to point out, while I have a little bit of time left, Ms. 

Grundmann—and I notice that we have many of your annual reports that will come out every couple of years. There wasn’t a lot 

of focus in the 2016 report on sexual harassment in the workplace. 

And I would hope, as we move forward, that the OOC and those 

who make up the agency would help us help you identify how we 

can better serve all of our employees at all levels and also understand how we can get anybody who may be a victim in front of you, 

in front of the office, and on the path to get the problem rectified. 

That is the goal. 

65 

And I appreciate you being here. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Great. We couldn’t agree with you more. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Raskin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Harper. 

So I think I want to begin with a question with Ms. Lipnic. 

The less power in equality that women have in the workplace, 

the more vulnerable they are to sexual harassment. I think we 

have to take it as both a sign and a cause of progress here that 

we have 84 women, I think it is, in the U.S. House today and 21 

in the Senate. One can only imagine the conditions of sexual harassment when the Senate and the House were all male, or virtually 

all male. 

But I saw an interesting comment by Barbara Ehrenreich, who 

has noted kind of a class bias in the sexual harassment discussions 

that we have been focused on, lots of women who are in professional jobs. And she said people are not talking about the hotel 

workers, the farm workers, the waitresses who face rampant sexual 

harassment and so on. 

And I am just wondering, is there anything that we can do that 

will benefit everyone, if not in the same legislation, necessarily, but 

are there policies we can advocate that will actually make a change 

for people across society? 

Ms. LIPNIC. Thank you for that question. 

So, in our work at the EEOC, you are absolutely right. I mean, 

we see harassment claims across industries, across income levels, 

from the executives suite to the factory floor, to the farmers’ fields. 

We have had horrendous cases of harassment for particularly vulnerable workers. 

That is part of the reason why, when we put our task force together, we included representatives from worker advocacy groups. 

So, certainly, things that are more outreach along those lines and 

that recognize the work advocacy groups, worker advocacy groups, 

can play and how individuals who are in vulnerable work situations can go to those organizations and seek some redress. 

You know, certainly one thing to consider—and this is something 

that we have in the Federal sector—is requirements that information is provided in different languages so that, you know, you are 

reaching populations, particularly for vulnerable workers, who 

English may not be their first language. So that is certainly one 

thing to consider. 

In terms of legislative changes, in terms of Title VII, I am not 

sure that there is—I am not sure that there is anything that I 

could recommend right now, and I certainly would be happy to give 

more thought to it. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Let’s pursue that—— 

Ms. LIPNIC. Sure. 

Mr. RASKIN [continuing]. If we could. And I thank you very 

much. 

Ms. Lett, let me ask you, you began by mentioning this interesting article, which I saw too, ‘‘Question My Story’’ by a victim of 

66 

sexual harassment. And you invoked her description of gray areas 

and the lack of third-party witnesses and so on. 

And it brought to mind the F. Scott Fitzgerald saying that the 

sign of first-class intelligence is the ability to hold contrary 

thoughts in your mind at the same time and still conduct yourself 

effectively. 

And everyone agrees we need zero tolerance, and everyone agrees 

we also need a process that is fair to the victims and fair to the 

accused. The problem is that people today think that our process 

is so cumbersome and convoluted that its purpose is not to discover 

the truth but somehow to bury the truth or to complicate the truth. 

That is, at least, the public perception. 

And so can we do to make sure that we do have a process that 

is fair, that is perceived as fair, but also moves things quickly 

enough so that people see that we are taking the issue seriously? 

Ms. LETT. Well, as I mentioned before when I was asked a question about the cooling-off period, I don’t have a practical reason to 

think that that is not a good idea. Certainly, it is not going to 

change how we do business. And so eliminating, possibly, that particular piece of the process might be helpful. 

I do think that there—and I know that the Office of Compliance 

can speak more to this, but—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Just to be clear, you were saying that we don’t need 

the cooling-off period? 

Ms. LETT. From my perspective, I don’t think it is needed. As I 

said, the one reservation I have is that it does provide an additional chance to resolve a matter before a full-blown litigation begins. 

I do think it is important to communicate to employees their 

rights. That is not my job, not our office’s job. And I know that 

there have been, over the years, efforts by the Office of Compliance. 

I remember when I first started on the Hill, we would get paychecks, and there would be communication about the Office of 

Compliance and our rights under the Congressional Accountability 

Act. So more efforts, of course, to train employees, to make them 

aware of their rights, and ongoing communication, I think, would 

be helpful. 

I have to say, the plaintiffs’ bar is very savvy about these rules, 

and, typically, employees don’t have problems getting attorneys 

representing them. Most of the concerns I have heard is that the 

process is lengthy. So eliminating the cooling-off period would be 

helpful. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. 

Comstock, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to focus on what you cited, Ms. Lipnic, as one of the 

best prevention methods, which is the trusted complaint procedures. 

Now, we have the procedures that by law you are required to 

have. So I appreciate, Ms. Lett, as you laid out, you know, you 

have to deal with both sides. But we have been talking about and 

67 

I think a number of us have talked about having some type of victims advocate, having a separate person for the victim, whether it 

is an ombudsman, an advocate, a victims counsel. 

Wouldn’t that help, if we had somebody where the victim can 

go—and even if they have had the training, you know, when you 

are in that situation—you know, I mean, we have special people for 

rape victims, they then go, and you are walked through the whole 

process at that point when you are in crisis. 

So if we could have somebody that they could go to in that type 

of situation, wouldn’t that improve the whole dynamic of the experience of the victim, putting them on a level playing field and helping them through this process? 

I will start with you, Ms. Lipnic. 

Ms. LIPNIC. Sure. I think that is a very valuable suggestion. 

One of the things I would tell you, that when we were doing the 

work of the task force, we actually invited people from the Pentagon, from the Defense Department, because of what they have 

been dealing with for the last, you know, 14 years and their own 

internal procedures as to sexual assault in the military. 

And so having a victims advocate is something I know that they 

set up there, and I would urge you to maybe consult with, you 

know, the generals there who have been dealing with that, and 

they would have more experience with that. 

But that is something that—I think your focus on addressing the 

immediate situation for the person, what can help them in that immediate situation, how will they know what is going to happen, 

and what is the corrective action that is taken immediately, needs 

to be a big focus. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Okay. Thank you. 

And I know that is in Congresswoman Speier’s legislation and 

Congressman Byrne had talked about that. And I do want to thank 

Ms. Bertucci again, because when I had asked her, with her situation, what could we do that would have helped, an ombudsman, a 

counsel, an advocate was the single thing that she identified that 

I do think—just thinking about that experience, I think it is very 

important that we get that in the legislation and then also have 

that be, you know, imbued through the training also. 

Perhaps on the training process, too, you know, when someone 

sets up a House account and they are a new employee, maybe we 

can have more socialization in getting information directly to them 

in multiple methods, not just, ‘‘Here is a class you can go to,’’ but 

let’s make sure we are getting, you know, more information out 

that way. 

And then I wanted to—I guess the Office of Compliance. I know 

you are continuing to go through the records and to give us the information on the overall cases. 

And I think, Ms. Lett, you went through the type of cases you 

are getting. 

But given the public’s concern and, sort of, the public right to 

know about what type of cases you are dealing with, and particularly, you know, when Members are involved and/or Members’ 

staff, do you estimate you will have that information soon so that 

we can have that available for the public in whatever legal way you 

are allowed to have it, have a much more detailed accounting? 

68 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. A couple things. Let me just address the victims counsel just specifically, because it was part of our statement. 

We understand that during at least the counseling stage and certainly in the mediation stage, when the employing office is represented by OHEC, that the victim feels entirely alone and is at 

a severe disadvantage. So what we have proposed to do is really 

beef up the counseling stage so the counselor actually actively participates in technical advice, in drafting a complaint. 

That coupled with investigatory authority given to our general 

counsel to immediately investigate these claims as it emerges can 

be a form of advocacy on behalf of the employee. 

But in response to your question—and this actually dovetails into 

Mrs. Brooks’ request to us regarding the ethics. We provided a response this morning. The law as it is currently written is difficult 

for us to produce this kind of information, because we know that 

in counseling it is a strict confidentiality, and that binds our office 

from discussing it. The employing office, as Gloria Lett said, is not 

told. 

In mediation, there is also strict confidentiality. And that specifically adheres to the products, the materials that are produced in 

mediation. And that is, again, strictly confidential, but it is not unusual in our process. Mediation is private throughout the industry. 

What our law specifically requires, in terms of producing information in the rules, is numbers and types of inquiries that come 

to our office, number and types of initial requests for counseling, 

numbers of covered employees to the complaints they file, the 

claims they raise, and the disposition of those claims. 

In terms of disclosure to Ethics, we, to our knowledge, have not 

received any requests up until this recent one, so we appreciate the 

concern. The law as it is currently written only allows us to disclose this type of information in a very narrow circumstance, under 

two conditions: when the case reaches a final decision and the employee is consulted. So, in the event that we cannot release documents with respect to counseling, mediation: where there is no 

final decision and when the employee has not been consulted. 

Having said that, we would like to work with this committee to 

change that rule. And a potential change really goes towards granting us the authority to investigate claims. If the general counsel 

were granted that authority, it would be similar to what we have 

in ADA and OSHA. The general counsel, at that point, could find— 

if there is reason to believe that the law had been violated, a report 

could be generated. And that report could be made available to you. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Okay. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would just mention, I hope we can get 

much more detailed information, and if we need to make changes 

to allow you to do that, because if we are going to correct the process, we need to know what has happened, where the complaints 

have been. 

I noted the committee got a report on November 28, a memo, detailing from 1997 to 2007, where it laid out that 90 percent of the 

cases were with the Architect and the Capitol Police—probably a 

lot of safety things. 

69 

But I think we need to know what are the type of cases and then 

when Members or Member offices are involved and how we are 

going to do that going forward. 

But I think the public has a right to know that, going back, and, 

certainly, going forward, how we can improve that transparency. So 

I hope you can work with us on that in getting more detail. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Understood. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

And my apologies for being tardy. The FBI Director is over in the 

Judiciary Committee, and I had to be there for a bit. And I think 

my colleague Mr. Raskin has the same conflict. 

This, obviously, is a very serious matter for us. And we are, I 

think, very clearly going to change the procedures and the statute 

that we have. So the question is how to do that, how to avoid pitfalls. 

And one of the things that I am interested in is the recommendation that you have made, Ms. Grundmann, on the additional powers for the general counsel that you just referenced, specifically 

how the counsel would use those investigative powers to get to the 

facts of the matter that you currently can’t do. 

What conflicts might exist if that were assigned to you? And 

could you more fully explain that to us? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Absolutely. 

Rather than reinventing the wheel, we propose to use the internal mechanisms that we currently have. And the general counsel, 

as we state, does have investigatory authority in certain areas, 

such as in OSHA and ADA. 

And how that really works is a claim can be filed anonymously, 

which is unusual. It is not the same in the labor forum. But the 

current practice would be we would work, the general counsel 

would work with the employing office. Now, clearly, that is not 

going to work in this particular circumstance. But, in the investigation, there is a move towards resolution. Because in OSHA cases 

and ADA cases, there are a lot of dollars involved, so there is a significant amount of negotiation and discussion. 

If the matter is not resolved, it could result in the filing of a complaint by the general counsel. The general counsel actually represents the employee, in this case, in moving the case forward. 

That is the process we envision putting into effect. 

The reports are not made public. And they are given to the party 

that can control the outcome, who can fix the outcome, if you will. 

So the process is in place. The concern we have is the lack of 

staffing. We don’t know how great the volume will be—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. Of course. 

One of the things that I think—we want more transparency on 

some of this. I mean, if you have an employer-employee dispute— 

for example, under the act that we adopted in 1995, certain employees are exempt from overtime and certain employees aren’t, 

just as in the private sector. You could have a dispute about that 

category and a fight about overtime. I don’t know that that needs 

to have the same level of disclosure as a sexual harassment thing. 

70 

We want to stomp that out, and part of the way to do that is to 

have some daylight on this process. 

So one of the things I have been thinking a lot about—and, certainly, my colleague Ms. Speier has done the work on this bill, but 

it is a beginning point—how do we make this transparent in a way 

that protects the victims who want to maintain their privacy, but 

some victims are bullied into a confidential agreement. 

So I am just wondering in terms of what other people in an office 

where there is sexual harassment, what their role is, what their 

obligation is, and are they constrained by these agreements that 

are being undertaken right now. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. So part of our training in the future, coming 

soon, will cover bystander training—specifically, how do people who 

view this type of activity, what do they do. And I think that is 

something Representative Speier has previously mentioned in 

terms of our training. It is a hard area for us to deal in. The confidentiality that is currently in the rules prohibits us from having 

a conversation—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yeah, but we can change those rules. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. And let me urge this committee, as you go 

about changing these rules, one of the communities that you need 

to reach out to really is the plaintiffs’ bar and the employee representatives. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. And we are doing that. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Let me also talk a little bit about what we 

hear on nondisclosure agreements. That is a very confusing area, 

but we have a very simple answer. We don’t require nondisclosure 

agreements. It is a product of the parties. We don’t provide standardized language. And we don’t require anybody to sign a nondisclosure agreement to come into our system. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. That is important, but, certainly, the inherent power differential between, say, a Member of Congress who 

is harassing and a staffer who has been harassed is pretty extreme. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Absolutely. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I read an article recently about a young 

woman who stepped forward and has never been able to be employed again, even though she did the right thing. So, certainly, we 

need to get our heads around how to protect victims even beyond 

a settlement agreement. 

And I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I would like to thank Representatives Bradley Byrne and 

Susan Brooks for the leadership not just on this committee but the 

example that you set in our entire conference. 

I have a couple questions for Mr. Crowley. 

It has come to our attention that Federal agencies are required 

to reimburse this judgment fund for judgments against agencies 

and settlements for discrimination in the workplace, yet there is no 

comparable requirement for Congress. 

71 

So, when we talk about liability, what discussions were held 

prior to or during consideration of the Congressional Accountability 

Act regarding personal liability for settlements and final judgments 

awarded under the CAA? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, Congressman, again, my memory is two decades old here, but—— 

Mr. WALKER. I understand. 

Mr. CROWLEY [continuing]. As I recall, there was a very clear discussion early on that would have simply prohibited personal liability for Members, as well as punitive damages. 

That changed, as the process unfolded, to limiting the ability to 

pay judgments out of the new fund that was created. And, of 

course, those discussions occurred extensively with the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, who had a significant input into that decision. 

But I think the general notion was that, first of all, it is not the 

Member personally, it is the employing office of the Member, so 

that, for example, if a Member leaves office, there would still be the 

ability to get restitution from the office after the fact. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. 

Mr. CROWLEY. So I think it would be aberrational to hold Members personally responsible when, in fact, it is an employing office 

of the Congress for all other purposes, including the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, et cetera. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. All right. You covered, actually, the second 

part of that question, so let me then ask this: Is there any provision in the Congressional Accountability Act or in House rules that 

would forbid the use of the MRA funds to pay for a settlement 

reached at any point during the dispute resolution period? 

Mr. CROWLEY. I am not sure there is a clear answer to that question. There is, in the statute, a limitation on what funds can be 

used to settle claims. But, of course, Members have broad discretion over the use of the MRA, and I imagine that, in certain circumstances, particularly when part of the settlement involves reinstatement to a position, that implicitly the MRA would be used. 

Mr. WALKER. Yeah. And I can’t imagine that that wasn’t part of 

the discussion, with the authority that a Member would have. And 

even going back to those years, the budgets for staffing were much 

higher than they even exist today. You know, a 2-week settlement 

or a month for conflict resolution or maybe an employee didn’t fit, 

but the authority or the ability to cover up such office behavior, 

wrongdoing, harassment, leaves a lot of discretion in the Members’ 

hands. 

So is that what you are telling me, that there can be a separate 

settlement or payment outside of the Congressional Accountability 

Act using the MRA? 

Mr. CROWLEY. I think Members implicitly have that authority. 

But you have to remember that, at the time—the MRA didn’t exist 

until Bill Thomas created it. Before that, we had the Clerk Hire 

Allowance and roughly a dozen different allowances that were consolidated with the specific intention of giving Members discretion 

on how to deploy those resources, to such an extent that the committee was actually renamed from the Committee on House Administration to the Committee on House Oversight to emphasize the 

72 

fact that it was not going to be determined at the committee level 

but by the individual Member. 

And so I think that there is some conflict between the Congressional Accountability Act language and the inherent authority that 

Members have over the MRA. 

Mr. WALKER. Your testimony highlights the Speech or Debate 

Clause within the Constitution. Can you explain to the committee 

how this clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its 

applications within the context of the Congressional Accountability 

Act? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, sir. 

The lower courts—I don’t think the Supreme Court has ruled, 

but the lower courts, the D.C. Circuit in particular, has ruled that 

the Speech or Debate Clause does not preclude suits under the 

Congressional Accountability Act, but there still remains the immunity that is essentially an affirmative defense that Members can 

assert. 

And so we have created sort of a gray area. You know, stepping 

back to the original discussions around the act, there was case law 

saying that it is unclear whether Congress can waive its constitutional privileges, but any waiver would have to be explicit and unequivocal. 

Mr. WALKER. Yep. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And I would have to say that in the Congressional 

Accountability Act we equivocated. 

Mr. WALKER. And one last question. It is a simple ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ 

Mr. Crowley. Do you believe it is wrong for Members to use the 

MRA to settle interpersonal sexual harassment claims? 

Mr. CROWLEY. My personal opinion? 

Mr. WALKER. Personal opinion. 

Mr. CROWLEY. That the taxpayers should not be on the hook for 

that. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. 

Smith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to your witnesses. And I certainly thank you for this 

interaction today among members, and certainly a very serious 

topic. 

It is interesting, I appreciate my colleague Mrs. Comstock’s recommendation for a victims advocate. And if each of you, starting 

with Ms. Grundmann and Ms. Lett, if you could express how that 

might be able to be brought into the existing process, what changes 

might need to take place so that, if that is the decision, to make 

changes, if that would work and how that might work. 

And then, Ms. Lipnic, if you could perhaps express your knowledge of how that has been done elsewhere and how effective it has 

been. 

Go ahead, Ms. Grundmann. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Sure. 

73 

What we propose really is beefing up what we already have, 

rather than throwing out what we have and creating a separate office. 

We could take the counselor’s position and actually make it a 

much more interactive process with the employee, whereby the 

counselor would help technically advise the employee on how to 

draft a charge or a complaint, coupled with using the general counsel and giving him the authority to investigate claims in the dispute resolution program. 

If the general counsel were to find that there is a reasonable 

cause to believe that the law were violated, he would actually represent the employee in further administrative processes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. Lett. 

Ms. LETT. I would have to think a little bit more about how it 

would work, in terms of the specifics. But I can tell you that it 

would likely be a welcome thing, from my clients’ perspective, in 

that I think an advocate would encourage employees to come forward sooner rather than later. 

That would be music to our ears, certainly, because the sooner 

an employer knows that there is an issue, the sooner they can address it. It is not a good model when things barrel way down the 

track and an employee feels that he or she has—he or she—has to 

go to the Office of Compliance for relief. So I think there absolutely 

could be some upside to that. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Lipnic. 

Ms. LIPNIC. Mr. Smith, all I would add is, by the time people are 

coming to the EEOC to file a charge of discrimination, at that point 

we are investigating for liability purposes. So there is no victims 

advocacy role on the part of the EEOC itself. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Crowley, do you wish to comment? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, I think it is an interesting idea. It is amazing to me the extent to which the issues haven’t fundamentally 

changed. The intent at the time was to create a process that would 

both encourage victims to come forward and allow for resolution in 

a way that didn’t incentivize politically charged claims immediately 

before an election. And so anything consistent with those objectives, which this sounds like this might be, seems worth pursuing. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Loudermilk, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here. 

Of all the issues that I ever thought I would be dealing with 

when I ran for Congress, this is not one of them. And, in fact, it 

sickens me, the idea that the most respected legislative body in the 

world’s reputation is being tainted by us discussing this. But it is 

extremely important. 

And it boils down to character. And, in reality, there is nothing 

we can do to affect someone’s character, but we can remove the 

74 

bushes that allow the bad characters to hide behind. And I think 

that is kind of the direction that we are looking. 

Ms. Grundmann, in your testimony, you described in detail 

OOC’s process and make several recommendations. But one of the 

areas that you didn’t really address is OOC’s rule in administering 

the award settlement fund. Can you kind of take us through your 

role in the payment process once the tentative settlement is 

reached or a final judgment is received? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Absolutely. But, first, if you will allow me to 

clarify. The statute refers to funds that are appropriated by the 

Treasury. In actuality, there is no fund. It is an account, and that 

account is empty until we requisition the funds for a particular 

award or settlement. 

And, also, to be clear about this settlement account, the $17 million we have talked about, yes, it covers awards and settlements 

from our dispute resolution process. It also covers awards and settlements from district court. It also covers settlements and awards 

that derive out of the arbitration process for various collective bargaining agreements in the legislative community, such as at the 

Architect of the Capitol and at the Capitol Police. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Can I ask one quick question? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Sure. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And we will get back to this. It is a zero-dollar 

account. When something occurs like we are talking about here, 

where does the money come from? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. We actually requisition it. The account is 

empty until a settlement comes through, and then we ask for the 

money through the vehicle of a warrant, which should be familiar 

to this committee. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Right. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Our role in settlements is purely ministerial. 

The parties negotiate the terms. It is incumbent upon them to 

agree. It is incumbent upon OHEC to secure the proper authority 

from this committee when settlements come out of the Treasury for 

the House. 

But should Congress desire to beef up our role, for instance, by 

giving us a greater review for legality of these decisions, you would 

have to change the act. Currently, we don’t have the authority. The 

only thing we look for is whether it is signed by the parties and 

it is a written statement. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Can you kind of walk me through this process 

of, say, this zero-dollar account? You receive notice of a settlement 

of X number of dollars. Then you request, through a warrant, that 

much money. 

Can you start at that point? Walk us through who sends the 

money to the account. Is it the Treasury? Is it from House Appropriations? And until the individual who filed the complaint receives 

the check, what is that process? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Let’s take one step back. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. When the settlement is reached, the award 

comes to our office. We review it for two things: in writing and 

signed by the parties. That is it. And clarity, essentially. 

75 

That settlement agreement then goes to our case administrator. 

She obtains payment information from the parties who will receive 

payment—routing information, banking information. 

Then the document moves down the hall, and it goes to our budget officer. She actually requisitions the funds—this is the account 

we are talking about—through the vehicle of the warrant. 

And once the funds are there, the settlement agreement actually 

goes to a fourth—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Who do the funds come from? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. They come from Treasury. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. From Treasury. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. And then the final step that we have in this 

process is the agreement goes to a fourth person to check that all 

the information is correct, the routing information. And then the 

funds are released. 

At that point, our involvement with the fund ends. We do not determine when the person is paid. There could be an offset, for instance. But we are done with the process. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Is there any other process in there to where anyone in Congress 

notified of a settlement, has to sign off on it? Or is it just within 

your office? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Other than rule X, which governs this committee, whereby the Chairman and the Ranking Member have to 

sign off on particular settlements that come out of this account, 

that is the only rule. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So, in that process, then, the Chairman and 

Ranking Member do sign off on that? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. That would be a good question for Ms. Lett. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

And, Ms. Lett, in the few moments left, could you answer that 

question? 

Ms. LETT. The answer is yes. If there is a settlement that comes 

out of the Treasury, that has to be approved by this committee. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, if we do other questions, I have some others, but 

I will yield back at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair will now recognize Ms. Speier for 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been said a couple of times and I just want 

to underscore the importance of having the plaintiffs’ bar appear 

before the committee, as well, to hear from them how the process 

has or has not been working so we can refine it moving forward. 

To the last question that Mr. Loudermilk just raised, it was my 

understanding in one article that I read that the former chair of 

this committee declined to approve any sexual harassment cases, 

and, as a result, the MRA started to be used for that process. 

Is that your recollection, Ms. Lett? 

Ms. LETT. That is not exactly accurate. There were more than 

sexual harassment cases that were not approved. 

Ms. SPEIER. Well, maybe so. But were there sexual harassment 

cases in which the former Chair declined to sign off on—the RankVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:51 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 031448 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A448.XXX A448
76 

ing Member was not made aware of. That is how it was reported, 

and I am trying to get clarification. 

Ms. LETT. I don’t remember the exact number. It may have been 

one or two, but it certainly was not more than that. 

Ms. SPEIER. So if it is not signed off by the Chair, then there has 

to be another way in which the settlement is reached. And that, in 

my understanding, is how the MRA has been used in some cases. 

Ms. LETT. That is correct. 

Ms. Speier. I want to focus back on the victim. One of the problems—and you made mention of it, Ms. Lipnic—is that you have 

a victim who has come forward, is concerned about the fact that 

she has been sexually harassed, either by the Member or someone 

in the office, but she has to continue to work in that office in order 

for it to be resolved through the Office of Compliance. If she doesn’t 

continue to work in the office, then the Office of Compliance has 

no role, correct? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Oh, you are talking to me? I thought you were 

talking to Ms. Lipnic. 

There is a concern that we haven’t discussed here today, and 

that really is about retaliation. You know, the employee has filed 

a claim—— 

Ms. SPEIER. That is what I am getting to. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Perfect. 

Retaliation is covered currently under the CAA, in that an employee who has come to our office, experienced some sort of retaliation, would have a separate claim. 

But here is how the process works. The employee comes in. They 

seek counseling. They go to mediation. The employee office now 

knows of the claim. There is retaliation that occurs. Under the current process, that employee would have to restart the process 

again, go back through counseling, go back through mediation. 

And this is why we propose the possibility of investigations for 

our general counsel and the possibility of amending the complaint 

so that the charges all merge at one point in time, rather than 

going back through the whole system again. 

Ms. SPEIER. So I am also concerned, though, that we don’t have 

a means yet—and possibly should consider this—to allow the employee to work remotely, to the extent that they can. In some offices, you can’t. If you work for the Architect and you have to be 

painting offices, you can’t do that remotely. But in offices where 

you can, so that there is not the continued environment that is 

very uncomfortable for the victim. 

Ms. LETT. May I address that, Congresswoman? 

There actually is a way that that can happen. And it has happened in other cases. In the—— 

Ms. SPEIER. I think we just need to make it explicit, is what I 

am suggesting. I don’t think it has always been the case for everybody. One of the complaints that was filed that went through the 

process, the employee had to be in the office. And I don’t think that 

is right, personally. 

Ms. LETT. I can speak to—I can’t speak to specific cases, but, as 

I said, employing offices have a lot of flexibility in this area. And 

I think that this is an area where employees have been very effective, because, as soon as we know that an employee has engaged 

77 

in protected activity, we will counsel the employing office very 

strongly that, while the underlying case may not have merit, if the 

employee is retaliated against in any shape, form, or fashion, I 

mean, if they even have a thought bubble to retaliate, they are 

going to face a very difficult case. 

And so, I think, we have never lost a case on retaliation because—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. My time is running out, so I am going to ask 

a couple more questions. 

Ms. LETT. Sure. 

Ms. SPEIER. Soft landings. One case that we all are familiar with 

where the employee, after the settlement, couldn’t find a job in the 

Capitol. I would be interested—maybe we don’t have time right 

now—but some kind of discussion about what we do for employees 

who have, through no fault of their own, have been sexually harassed, they have come forward, they now have a scarlet letter that 

they wear and cannot be employed elsewhere. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Could I answer that question just very quickly? 

Under the current law, an employee who has left is still a covered employee up to 180 days from the violation. So, if there was 

retaliation, if they had left, they could still file a claim for that 180 

days. 

Ms. SPEIER. Yeah, but what happens if they still want to work 

in the building? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Larger policy. Yup. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the chair of the Ethics Committee, 

Mrs. Brooks, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again 

for allowing me to participate. 

I would like to ask permission to admit for the record the letter 

that Representative Deutch, my ranking member on Ethics, and I 

submitted that Ms. Grundmann has just referred to, the letter of 

December 1. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

78 


Insert offset folio 130 here 31448A.044
79 


Insert offset folio 131 here 31448A.045
80 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

And I would also ask unanimous consent that we admit into the 

record the Office of Compliance’s response that was received this 

morning that I have been reading this morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

81 


Insert offset folio 133 here 31448A.046
82 


Insert offset folio 134 here 31448A.047
83 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

In our letter on December 1, we asked that the committee—and 

because this is a hearing about the process and about examining 

reforms to the Congressional Accountability Act, that is what I 

want to zero in on. There are many, many other things I would 

love to talk about. 

However, we asked OOC to promptly provide the committee with 

all records in the possession of the office related to any claims of 

sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and so forth. 

The response that we received today indicates that—you refer— 

and I quickly went to section 1416 of confidentiality. As I am reading your response, you cannot share, because of the strict confidentiality rules, any claims that you have been involved in, OOC, relative to referrals to Ethics. Am I correct? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. You are absolutely correct. The way the law is 

written is the confidentiality, the strict confidentiality, not only 

binds the parties, it specifically binds our office from discussing 

those claims. 

And you are talking about claims overall. The law currently prohibits us from releasing information regarding in the counseling 

period, in the mediation period, but allows for a very narrow exception when a case has gone to hearing and a final decision has been 

rendered and the employee consents. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And to that point on the hearing, there was only 

one hearing in 2016, in fiscal year 2016. Is that correct? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. If that is what is in the letter. I—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. That is not in the letter. That is on a screen-shot 

on your website. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Now, it is possible that that case settled—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. Okay. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN [continuing]. And there was no final decision. 

Mrs. BROOKS. There was one that indicated a hearing, but you 

indicated in this letter that there have been no proceedings before 

a hearing officer. And the hearing officer comes after mediation. It 

is the end stage of your process—— 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Correct. 

Mrs. BROOKS [continuing]. Correct? And you indicate that there 

have not been any proceedings before a hearing officer or a board 

relative to any Members or employees. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Correct. That doesn’t cover district court. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Okay. That covers the court of appeals. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. It does not cover the court of appeals. It only 

covers our administrative hearing process before one of our hearing 

officers. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Okay. And so are you saying that there are matters that have gone to district court? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. There are matters that have gone to district 

court. 

Mrs. BROOKS. That you don’t have possession of those records? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. We are not part of that process. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Okay. And so those people who decide to go to district court, they pursue their own process in district court. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. That is correct. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And so we are not getting anything. 

84 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Pardon me? 

Mrs. BROOKS. We are not going to receive anything regarding 

any—and we actually asked about any employment matters. We 

actually asked related to claims of sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or any employment practice. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. That goes back to the law. The law doesn’t 

allow us to release anything to your committee. 

But if we were to change the law, then we could use the method, 

through investigation by our general counsel, any report that is 

generated where reasonable cause has been found that the law has 

been violated could be released to your committee. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And so let me ask you, as well as Ms. Lett, what 

are your opinions on mandatory reporting to the Ethics Committee 

in harassment matters? 

Ms. LETT. I have to say that is a very difficult question to answer. When we handle matters of discrimination and we talk with 

our clients, we tell our clients that it is possible that we will resolve the case or the case may go forward, but there may also be 

some type of Ethics matter that might arise out of those circumstances. So they will know that they may be fighting on two 

fronts, whatever the claim may be. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And can I ask, Ms. Grundmann: In your letter, you 

state to us that you have encouraged employees who have been the 

victim that may constitute an ethical violation to contact our committee—how do you do that?—and to cooperate with our investigation. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. We do that through the counseling period. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And is that just written? It is a written discussion? 

Or do you provide them that in writing, that they should—— 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Counseling is generally by phone or in person. 

So it is a verbal discussion. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And is there any discussion—and I am sorry, my 

time is up. But my question was, is there any discussion about the 

confidentiality of the Ethics proceedings, in many ways, not that 

initial investigations might not be reported, but, in fact, very often 

the witnesses, the complaining witnesses, are often kept confidential? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. I believe there is. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Byrne, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your allowing me to participate in this hearing. It has been very edifying 

for me. 

Mr. Crowley, I want to make sure I clarify one thing with you. 

I don’t think you are saying this, but I want to make sure we get 

this very clear. You are not saying the Speech or Debate Clause 

provides immunity to a Member or a Member’s office if they engage 

in sexual harassment. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Congressman, that is a very difficult question to 

answer. Clearly, the conduct itself is not protected. The question 

becomes what happens when a Member of Congress asserts that a 

85 

discriminatory action, which, of course, sexual harassment includes, was not motivated by what the victim says it was—clearly, 

sexual harassment, under any circumstances—— 

Mr. BYRNE. But that would not be sexual harassment then. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, keep in mind that sexual harassment is a 

form of discrimination under the—— 

Mr. BYRNE. It is a subset of discrimination based on gender, but 

sexual harassment cannot be immunized by the United States Constitution. 

Mr. CROWLEY. That is correct. 

Mr. BYRNE. Okay. I wanted to make sure we got that clear. 

Now, I want to move to what we do about it. And I think where 

we are really touching here is how we investigate and enforce this. 

Ms. Grundmann, you do not have the authority to investigate or 

enforce that today, in sexual harassment. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. That is correct. 

Mr. BYRNE. But if it was an OSHA a case, you would. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. That is correct. 

Mr. BYRNE. Why would there be a distinction between OSHA 

cases and sexual harassment cases? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. We have those same questions. 

Mr. BYRNE. Okay. 

Mr. Crowley, do you want to answer that question? 

Mr. CROWLEY. You know, Congressman, the honest answer is I 

don’t recall. I do recall conversations around having the Office of 

Compliance play a particular role with respect to the ADA and 

OSHA because it was a case of first impression. These are historic 

buildings. If there needed to be retrofitting of an elevator shaft, for 

example, it was a more involved discussion. And so that was the 

reason that the Office of Compliance was given responsibility in 

that area. But why it didn’t go further, I can’t tell you. 

Mr. BYRNE. Well, I will say this. A lot of case law occurred in 

this area after 1995. I mean, we have the Faragher decision from 

1998, the Oncale decision. So a lot happened after that time that 

you wouldn’t have known about at the time you were writing it. 

So, Ms. Lipnic, let me turn to you. You do have the power, 

whether it is in regard to people in the private sector or Federal 

employees that don’t work for Congress, you do have the power at 

the EEOC to both investigate and enforce. Do you think that the 

Office of Compliance should have similar powers when those sorts 

of things come up with regard to Members of Congress or people 

that work for us? 

Ms. LIPNIC. The short answer is yes. 

Mr. BYRNE. Okay. I like short answers. They are the best. 

Ms. LIPNIC. Again, as you well know—and, you know, I thought 

your testimony from the November hearing was spot-on. Again, 

this point I keep making, there is the difference between that immediate investigation that has to take place and that corrective action. And then, you know, the investigation at the EEOC is when 

someone comes to us, and we are investigating, essentially, was 

there an investigation, what happened internally, what was, you 

know, the corrective action taken by the company. But someone 

needs to be doing that. 

86 

And, now, it is my understanding from the testimony that I read 

that the House Employment Counsel plays that first role, in terms 

of investigating Members’ offices. But I think it is certainly worth 

considering, do you want to have, you know, a third party, essentially, who is not then representing the Members’ offices later on 

in the process, conducting that initial investigation and then also 

making some determination in terms of liability. 

Mr. BYRNE. Here is a really sticky issue. And, Ms. Lett, I am 

going look at you for this one. 

Now, in the private sector, where we don’t have public disclosure 

issues, when we engage in mediation or we engage in settlement 

discussions and we reach an agreement, it is almost always confidential. Mediation rules require confidentiality, and the settlement agreements, which are contracts, have confidentiality provisions in them because the confidentiality, or the promise of it, 

helps foster the negotiations, helps foster people coming to a meeting of the minds. 

How do we resolve that tension here in the public sector? 

Ms. LETT. I wish I had an easy answer for you on that one, Congressman. There is a tension there. Oftentimes, the employees 

want that confidentiality because they want to go and they want 

to get other jobs. Certainly, Members of Congress want that confidentiality, because even if a Member or the office has done absolutely nothing wrong, putting that information out into the public 

can certainly hurt. 

So I don’t have an easy answer to that question. I certainly will 

give it some additional thought, but it is a very difficult situation. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you. Me either. 

Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here today. You 

have given us some very valuable testimony to consider as we go 

forward. 

And I particularly want to also thank Mrs. Comstock for her 

work on this. She has been invaluable to this committee and will 

be as we go forward. 

Also, again, I want to thank Representatives Speier and Byrne 

for your previous testimony here on November 14 and your participation, along with Mrs. Brooks today, as ex-officio members. I appreciate that insight that you have given. 

We have a great responsibility as we go forward to get this right 

and to make sure that we continue with the message that one case 

of sexual harassment is one too many. How do we make sure that 

the victim—as Ms. Speier has so eloquently stated, how do we 

make sure that the victim is protected, with changes that we will 

consider, when we balance transparency issues with making sure 

that a victim is not a victim a second time because of any changes 

that we make. And we want to make sure, with your input, that 

we make this in the correct way. 

It doesn’t seem that difficult for Members to remember the golden rule and to treat people with respect. And that will solve a lot 

of our future problems as we try to clean this up. 

87 

I want to remind everyone that members will have 5 legislative 

days to submit to the Chair additional questions in writing that 

would be passed on to the witnesses. 

If we do that, we would encourage you to answer those as quickly 

as possible so that those can be made a part of the record. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]