Strategic Plan for

Fiscal Years 2012–2016 

U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission

Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 i

Table of Contents

Message From The Commission ............................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

The Strategic Planning Process............................................................................................................................... 4

About the EEOC ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

Mission and Vision Statements............................................................................................................................. 10

Strategic Plan Diagram............................................................................................................................................ 11

Strategic Objective I ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Strategic Objective II................................................................................................................................................ 23

Strategic Objective III............................................................................................................................................... 28

Budgetary Resources Measure............................................................................................................................. 31

External Factors Affecting Achievement of Strategic Plan......................................................................... 32

Program Evaluations................................................................................................................................................ 33

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................. 34

Appendix A—Strategic Planning Workgroups............................................................................................... 35

Appendix B—Strategic Enforcement Plan & Quality Control Plan Timelines...................................... 37

Appendix C—EEOC Organizational Chart........................................................................................................ 38

Endnotes....................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 1

Message From The Commission

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is pleased to release the agency’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016. The Strategic Plan reflects a bold 

new strategy for implementing the power granted to the Commission by Congress in Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “to prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful 

employment practice.”

The work of the Commission depends on the daily efforts of approximately 2,500 dedicated 

personnel, located in 54 offices across the nation, to carry out the agency’s charge. In creating 

the Strategic Plan we sought the input of all members of the EEOC workforce in addition to the 

agency’s leadership. We also solicited and received comments from a wide range of stakeholders 

as well as our customers: the public. As a result, the plan is a true reflection of the agency and all 

those who share an interest in our mission. 

Three values underlie the Strategic Plan, form the basis of our agency culture, and guide our 

daily work.

•	 Commitment to Justice

•	 Accountability

•	 Integrity

Commitment to Justice: Congress entrusted the Commission with the responsibility of 

enforcing the nation’s employment non-discrimination laws. These laws reflect Congress’ 

vision of justice in employment in our nation’s workplaces. To honor the trust that has been 

given us, we must have an unwavering commitment to carrying out that vision of justice.

Accountability: Like all federal agencies, the EEOC is accountable to the public it serves. We 

must therefore continue to demand excellence in ourselves and have systems in place to hold 

us accountable for that excellence. To this end, the Commission must ensure that the resources 

entrusted to us are used in the intended manner, that the EEOC workforce has adequate training 

and that the agency’s processes are consistent and periodically evaluated and updated.

Integrity: The Commission has an obligation to be objective as it investigates charges and 

adjudicates cases. If we conclude that unlawful discrimination has occurred, we have an 

obligation to advance the public interest and work to fully remedy the harm caused by 

discrimination. We also have an obligation to be an impartial adjudicator in federal sector 

cases. Moreover, every person we serve or interact with in the performance of our work 

and every member of the EEOC workforce is entitled to be treated with respect, courtesy 

and professionalism. 

In keeping with these values, the Strategic Plan builds on the Commission’s past successes, yet 

challenges us to do more. It requires us to take a critical look at what we have accomplished thus 

far and explore where there is room to improve. 
2 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The plan prioritizes a coordinated, holistic approach to law enforcement, recognizing that 

operational and substantive silos have sometimes hampered the agency’s efforts to prevent and 

remedy unlawful discrimination. 

Moreover, the plan emphasizes the importance of excellent customer service, but also focuses on 

our most valuable resource—the EEOC workforce—by prioritizing the importance of equipping 

and training them to provide that service. 

The plan departs from our previous strategic plan in significant ways. It focuses less on 

measuring numbers and more on measuring what we need to do in order to achieve our longterm goals. This change is in recognition of the fact that some of the Commission’s previous 

numbers-based performance measures may have had unintended adverse consequences for 

the agency. Thus, we have taken a step back in the plan, developing performance measures that 

require us to first establish baselines in various areas and then think critically about what we 

should measure in order to determine the agency’s effectiveness. 

The Strategic Plan also requires the Commission to be proactive, rather than simply reactive. The 

plan requires the Commission to embark on an ambitious year-long effort to create the larger 

conceptual framework that will inform, justify and support the quantitative and qualitative 

performance measures throughout the plan. In short, the plan lays the foundation for the future 

of the EEOC, but it is only the beginning. 

The success of the plan will depend on its implementation, as led by the Chair. The Commission 

as a whole is committed to the timely and robust implementation of the plan’s provisions. 

Together, with the EEOC workforce, we look forward to spending the next year building on the 

work we have done thus far in the Strategic Plan.

The best measure of our success will be how the workplace operates when this generation’s 

children enter the workforce. Our hope and expectation is that the Strategic Plan sets us in the 

right direction for achieving a workplace in which unlawful employment discrimination becomes 

a relic of the past. 
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 3

Mission: Stop and 

remedy unlawful 

employment 

discrimination

Vision: Justice and 

equality in the 

workplace

Introduction

Since 1965, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC” or “the agency”) has served as the nation’s lead enforcer of employment antidiscrimination laws 

and chief promoter of equal employment opportunity (EEO). The Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 

2012–2016 (“the Strategic Plan”) establishes a framework for achieving the EEOC’s mission to 

“stop and remedy unlawful employment discrimination,” so that the nation might soon realize 

the Commission’s vision of “justice and equality in the workplace.” 

To accomplish this mission and achieve this vision in the 21st Century, the EEOC is committed to 

pursuing the following objectives and outcome goals:

1. Combat employment discrimination through strategic law enforcement, with the 

outcome goals of: 1) have a broad impact on reducing employment discrimination at the 

national and local levels; and 2) remedy discriminatory practices and secure meaningful relief 

for victims of discrimination;

2. Prevent employment discrimination through education and outreach, with the outcome 

goals of: 1) members of the public understand and know how to exercise their right to 

employment free of discrimination; and 2) employers, unions and employment agencies 

(covered entities) better address and resolve EEO issues, thereby creating more inclusive 

workplaces; and

3. Deliver excellent and consistent service through a skilled and diverse workforce and 

effective systems, with the outcome goal that all interactions with the public are timely, of 

high quality, and informative.

The plan also identifies strategies for achieving each outcome goal and identifies 14 

performance measures for gauging the EEOC’s progress as it approaches FY 2016. The plan 

requires significant changes in the agency’s approach to fulfilling its mission. As a result, during 

the first 1-2 years of the plan, the agency will establish new baselines so that it can finalize the 

milestones and targets for its measures. The plan will be updated accordingly in the EEOC’s 

Annual Performance Plans.

While greater resources would likely result in expedited progress, these lean budgetary times 

require the EEOC to prioritize its objectives and goals and be realistic in identifying strategies 

and setting measures. Thus, while this plan is rigorous and forward-looking, it assumes that 

staffing and budgetary resources will remain constant over the next four years, with additional 

funding provided to account for salary and inflationary increases. 
4 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The Strategic Planning Process

The Congress of the United States requires Executive departments, Government corporations, and independent establishments to develop and post a strategic plan on their public website 

every four fiscal years.1 The plan must include items such as: 

•	 a mission statement covering the major functions and operations of the agency;

•	 general goals and objectives, including outcome-oriented goals, for the agency;

•	 a description of how these goals and objectives are to be achieved; and

•	 an identification of key factors external to the agency and beyond its control that could 

significantly affect the achievement of its general goals and objectives.

Congress also requires that the head of each agency issue an annual performance plan covering 

each program activity set forth in the agency’s budget. This performance plan must establish 

performance goals that define the level of performance that will be achieved during the year 

in which the plan is submitted and the next fiscal year; express such goals in an objective, 

quantifiable, and measurable form; describe how the performance goals will contribute to the 

general goals and objectives established in the agency’s strategic plan; and finally, describe 

how the performance goals will be achieved. In addition, the performance plan must establish 

a balanced set of performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing progress 

toward each performance goal; provide a basis for comparing actual program results with 

the established performance goals; describe how the agency will ensure the accuracy and 

reliability of the data used to measure progress towards its performance goals; and describe 

major management challenges the agency faces and identify how the agency plans to address 

such challenges.2

The development of a four-year strategic plan, as well as the development of annual 

performance plans, require the leadership of an agency to reflect upon the statutory mission 

of the agency, reassess prior goals and objectives, and identify any new goals and objectives 

that will enable the agency to meet its statutory mission. The plans also alert Congress and 

stakeholders to key factors external to the agency that may affect the agency’s ability to carry 

out its mandate.

In July 2011, Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien launched the FY 2012 Strategic Planning Process 

for the agency in a memorandum directed to all employees. The memorandum outlined the 

steps related to the strategic planning process and described how employees could become 

involved through an internal web site created expressly for employees to respond to requests 

for comments. 

Chair Berrien also created two workgroups to lay the foundation for the Strategic Plan—the 

Strategic Planning Workgroup and the Performance Measurement Group. Both groups were 

comprised of staff from headquarters and field offices, with a broad range of expertise and 

understanding of the programs and activities conducted by the EEOC. 
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 5

The final plan was 

approved by the 

Commission by a 

vote of 4 to 1.

As the Performance Improvement Officer (PIO) and the Chief Operating Officer (COO), Claudia 

A. Withers was designated as Chair of the Strategic Plan Workgroup and the strategic planning 

process, generally. Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum was selected to lead the Performance 

Measurement Group. A full list of participants of both groups was posted on the agency’s 

internal web site dedicated to FY 2012-2016 Strategic Planning and appears in Appendix A. In 

addition, each Commissioner had a staff person represented on one of the two workgroups.

From August 2011 through November 2011, the two groups worked first independently, and 

then collaboratively, to develop the agency’s Vision, Mission, Strategic Objectives and Goals, and 

Performance Measures for the FY 2012–2016 Strategic Plan. All facets of the agency’s operations 

were engaged in the development process of the Strategic Plan, including the Commissioners 

and their senior staff, Office Directors, District Directors, Regional Attorneys, and the Union, as 

well as individual employees via the agency’s internal website. 

In January 2012, a draft of the Strategic Plan was posted on the EEOC’s external website at http://

www.eeoc.gov/ for public comment. The agency received 37 substantive comments: 15 from 

internal stakeholders; 7 from employer representatives; 9 from employee representatives; 4 from 

federal EEO offices; and 2 from state FEPAs.

In addition, the draft strategic plan was delivered to the Senate Committee on Health Education 

Labor and Pensions; Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; 

Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science and Related Agencies, Committee 

on Appropriations; House Committee on Education and the Workforce; House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform; and the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and 

Science and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations. 

The final plan was approved by the Commission on February 22, 2012 by a vote of 4-1. 

Implementation of the new Strategic Plan will begin in March 2012, including work on the 

Strategic Enforcement Plan.

As noted in Strategic Objective I and Appendix B, there will be future opportunities for public 

comment on the Strategic Enforcement and Quality Control Plan for investigations and 

conciliations. If, however, you have comments on the Strategic Plan, please send them to:

Executive Officer

Office of the Executive Secretariat 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M St. NE

Washington, DC 20507-0001

(202) 663-4070

TTY (202) 663-4494

http://www.eeoc.gov/ 
6 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the EEOC

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was established by Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and began operating on July 2, 1965. The mandate and 

authority of the EEOC was set forth in Title VII and cross-referenced in later laws enacted by 

Congress.3 The agency enforces federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of 

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information.

Leadership 

The Commission is composed of five members, not more than three of whom may be members 

of the same political party. Members of the bipartisan Commission are appointed by the 

President and confirmed by the Senate for a set term of five years. The President designates 

one member of the Commission to serve as Chair. The Chair is responsible, on behalf of the 

Commission, for the administrative operations of the agency. 

The EEOC’s General Counsel is also appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 

a set term of four years. The General Counsel is responsible for the conduct of litigation pursuant 

to the agency’s statutory authority.4

Laws Enforced

The EEOC enforces the following laws (listed in the order the EEOC obtained authority):

•	 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, which prohibits employment 

discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;5

•	 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, which prohibits 

employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age and older;6

•	 The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis 

of sex in compensation for substantially equal work performed under similar conditions;7

•	 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits employment 

discrimination against federal employees and applicants with disabilities;8

•	 Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended, which 

prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability in the private sector and in 

state and local government;9 and

•	 The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits 

employment discrimination based on genetic information.10

These laws also make it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained 

about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment 

discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 7

Most of these laws apply to private and state and local government employers with 15 or 

more employees, labor organizations, employment agencies, and the federal government 

(covered entities). (The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees; there is no 

minimum employee requirement under the EPA.) Title VII and Executive Order 12067 also 

authorize the EEOC to coordinate and lead the federal government’s efforts to combat 

workplace discrimination.11

Enforcement 

Private and State and Local Government Sectors. There are two major enforcement 

mechanisms available to the EEOC in the private and state and local government sectors. The 

first is the investigation and conciliation process (also called the “administrative process”): 

the investigation and resolution of charges brought by an individual or by a Commissioner 

alleging discrimination. The second is the litigation process in the private sector: the bringing 

of individual, class, and systemic, including pattern or practice, cases, in federal or state court 

against a covered entity accused of violating one or more of the laws the EEOC enforces.

Before an individual may file a private discrimination lawsuit against a covered entity under 

most of these laws, he or she must first file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Congress 

created this administrative exhaustion requirement to provide the EEOC with the opportunity to 

determine if there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination has occurred and to provide an 

opportunity for voluntary resolution where possible. A member of the Commission may also file 

a charge alleging discrimination by a covered entity, known as a Commissioner Charge.

In 1995, the EEOC created an alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) process. Under this system, 

some charges are dealt with prior to the initiation of any investigation. With regard to these 

charges, the respondent-covered entity and charging party are invited to mediate the dispute. 

During mediation, the focus of attention is not on whether the law has been violated, but rather, 

whether the issue can be resolved to the parties’ mutual satisfaction.

If mediation is declined or is unsuccessful, or if the charge is not sent to the ADR program in 

the first place, the EEOC may investigate the charge to determine if there is reasonable cause to 

believe discrimination has occurred. If such cause is found, the agency provides the respondentcovered entity an opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practice(s) through conciliation. 

If conciliation is unsuccessful, the agency is authorized to bring a civil action against the 

respondent-covered entity in federal or state court. If the entity is a state or local employer and 

the case is under Title VII, the ADA, or GINA, the U.S. Attorney General is authorized to bring suit. 

If neither the EEOC nor the Attorney General chooses to sue, a charging party can bring a private 

suit against the covered entity in court. A charging party may also intervene in cases under Title 

VII, the ADA or GINA where the government pursues litigation. The agency and the Attorney 

General are also authorized to issue Notices of Right to Sue to charging parties who wish to 

institute private litigation under Title VII, the ADA, or GINA. Notices of Right to Sue are 

not necessary for a charging party to file suit under the ADEA or EPA.12

The United States 

Equal Employment 

Opportunity 

Commission was 

established by Title 

VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 

(“Title VII”) and 

began operating on 

July 2, 1965.
8 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The EEOC is also authorized to investigate and act on a charge alleging a pattern or practice of 

discrimination filed by a member of the Commission or by an individual. In addition, the EEOC 

may initiate directed investigations under the EPA and the ADEA.

Congress has also authorized the agency to cooperate with State and local Fair Employment 

Practices Agencies (FEPAs), which are responsible for administering state fair employment laws, 

and to enter into agreements with these agencies to undertake investigations and conciliations 

of charges that would otherwise be investigated and conciliated by the EEOC.13 The EEOC 

currently has work sharing agreements with 95 state and local FEPAs. These organizations 

resolved 44,377 charges in FY 2011.14

The agency also works with 64 Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs) and has entered 

into contracts with TEROs so that they can advocate for Native American employment and Native 

American preference with employers on or near their reservations or lands.

Federal Government Sector. Title VII and subsequent employment antidiscrimination laws 

guarantee that “[a]ll personnel actions” affecting employees or applicants for employment by 

the federal agencies “shall be made free from any discrimination” based on race, color, religion, 

sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information. Federal employees are also protected 

against retaliation for complaining about discrimination, filing a charge of discrimination, or 

participating in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The EEOC is charged with 

both adjudicatory and oversight responsibilities with regard to this guarantee. 

A federal employee or applicant (“the complainant”) who believes he or she has been subjected 

to unlawful employment discrimination must first contact his or her agency’s equal employment 

opportunity (“EEO”) counselor, who will provide the complainant with the choice of participating 

either in EEO counseling or in a federal alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) program. If the 

matter is not settled during counseling or through ADR,15 the complainant may file a formal 

complaint with his or her agency’s EEO office and the agency must investigate the complaint if it 

determines the complaint meets jurisdictional and other requirements. While the investigatory 

processes of an agency are governed by procedural regulations issued by the EEOC, an agency 

has full control over the investigation itself.16

At the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is given the option of requesting a 

hearing with an EEOC administrative judge (“AJ”), who will adjudicate and rule on the claim, 

or asking their agency to issue a final decision as to whether discrimination occurred. If the 

complainant chooses the latter course and asks for a final agency decision, he or she can 

appeal the final agency decision to the EEOC. The EEOC will review the decision by the agency, 

adjudicate the claim, and issue a final decision. A complainant may pursue his or her claim in 

court if a final decision is not issued within 180 days of the date the complaint or EEOC appeal 

was filed.17

If the complainant chooses to have an AJ hear his or her claim and is dissatisfied with the judge’s 

decision, the complainant may file an appeal with the EEOC. Their agency may also file an appeal 

from an AJ’s determination. The EEOC will review the ruling by the AJ, adjudicate the claim, and 

issue a final appellate decision. 

The EEOC is also 

authorized to 

investigate and 

act on a charge 

alleging a pattern 

or practice of 

discrimination

filed by a member 

of the Commission 

or by an individual.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 9

The EEOC has authority to provide appropriate remedies to a federal complainant, including 

reinstatement, back pay, and damages. Relief ordered by the EEOC is binding on an agency, 

except in limited circumstances, and the agency may not appeal an adverse decision in federal 

court. As with a charging party in the private sector, the federal complainant may file a lawsuit 

in federal court to resolve the claims of discrimination once the EEOC’s final decision has 

been issued. 

The EEOC also has oversight responsibilities in the federal sector. The EEOC is authorized 

to review, approve, and evaluate federal agency equal employment opportunity plans and 

affirmative action programs and to review and evaluate the operation of all federal agency EEO 

programs. The EEOC conducts comprehensive reviews of federal agencies’ EEO programs and 

their progress toward attaining model EEO status under Management Directive 715. Each review 

is tailored to the individual agency’s needs and may include a written workforce analysis by race, 

sex, national origin and disability. A review also provides assistance in identifying barriers to 

equal opportunity at an agency and helps formulate plans to eliminate such barriers. The EEOC 

may also undertake on-site program evaluations that may result in remedial recommendations 

and a schedule of compliance reports.

Education & Outreach 

In addition to administrative and litigation enforcement, the EEOC is also required to provide 

technical assistance and training regarding the laws and regulations it enforces. The EEOC fulfills 

this mandate in the private, state and local government, and federal sectors by conducting nocost outreach and technical assistance education programs, as well as fee-based training and 

technical assistance education programs through the EEOC Training Institute. 
10 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The EEOC’s mission is to:

Stop and Remedy Unlawful 

Employment Discrimination

The EEOC’s vision is:

Justice and Equality in 

the Workplace 

Misio
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 11

Strat

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I

Combat employment 

discrimination through strategic 

law enforcement.

Outcome Goal I.A

Have a broad impact in reducing 

employment discrimination at the 

national and local levels. 

Strategy I.A.1: Develop and 

implement a Strategic Enforcement 

Plan that: (1) establishes EEOC 

priorities and (2) integrates the 

EEOC’s investigation, conciliation and 

litigation responsibilities in the private 

and state and local government 

sectors; adjudicatory and oversight 

responsibilities in the federal sector; 

and research, policy development, 

and education and outreach activities. 

Strategy I.A.2: Rigorously and 

consistently implement charge and 

case management systems to focus 

resources and enforcement on the 

EEOC’s priorities.

Strategy I.A.3: Use administrative 

and litigation mechanisms to identify 

and attack discriminatory policies 

and other instances of systemic 

discrimination.

Strategy I.A.4: Use EEOC decisions and 

oversight activities to target pervasive 

discriminatory practices and policies in 

federal agencies.

Outcome Goal I.B

Remedy discriminatory practices and 

secure meaningful relief for victims of 

discrimination.

Strategy I.B.1: Ensure that remedies 

end discriminatory practices and deter 

future discrimination.

Strategy I.B.2: Seek remedies that 

provide meaningful relief to individual 

victims of discrimination.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE II

Prevent employment 

discrimination through education 

and outreach.

Outcome Goal II.A

Members of the public understand 

and know how to exercise their 

right to employment free of 

discrimination.

Outcome Goal II.B

Employers, unions and 

employment agencies (covered 

entities) prevent discrimination 

and better resolve EEO issues, 

thereby creating more inclusive 

workplaces.

Strategy II.A.1: Target outreach 

to vulnerable workers and 

underserved communities.

Strategy II.B.1: Target outreach to 

small and new businesses. 

Strategy II.A.2 and II.B.2: Provide 

up-to-date and accessible 

guidance on the requirements of 

employment antidiscrimination 

laws.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE III

Deliver excellent and consistent 

service through a skilled 

and diverse workforce and 

effective systems.

Outcome Goal III.A

All interactions with the public 

are timely, of high quality, and 

informative.

Strategy III.A.1: Effectively engage 

in workforce development and 

planning, including identifying, 

cultivating, and sustaining a skilled 

and diverse workforce. 

Strategy III.A.2: Rigorously and 

consistently implement charge 

and case management systems to 

deliver excellent service.

Strategy III.A.3: Use innovative 

technology to facilitate responsive 

interactions and streamline agency 

processes.

MISSION

Stop and Remedy Unlawful 

Employment Discrimination

VISION

Justice and Equality in 

the Workplace
12 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I

Performance Measure 1 for Strategy 

I.A.1

By FY 2016, the EEOC develops, issues, 

implements, evaluates, and revises, 

as necessary, a Strategic Enforcement 

Plan.

Performance Measure 2 for Strategy 

I.A.2 and Strategy III.A.2

By FY 2016, TBD% of investigations 

and conciliations meet the criteria 

established in the new Quality Control 

Plan.

Performance Measure 3 for Strategy 

I.A.2 and Strategy III.A.2

By FY 2016, 100% of federal sector 

case inventory is categorized 

according to a new case management 

system and TBD% of hearings and 

appeals meet the criteria established 

in the new federal sector Quality 

Control Plan.

Performance Measure 4 for Strategy 

I.A.3

By FY 2016, TBD% of the cases in the 

agency’s litigation docket are systemic 

cases.

Performance Measure 5 for Strategy 

I.A.4

By FY 2016, the EEOC uses an 

integrated data system to identify 

potentially discriminatory policies or 

practices in federal agencies and has 

issued and evaluated TBD number of 

compliance plans to address areas of 

concern.

Performance Measure 6 for 

Strategies I.B.1 and I.B.2

By FY 2016, a TBD% of the EEOC’s 

administrative and legal resolutions 

contain targeted, equitable relief.

Performance Measure 7 for 

Strategies I.B.1 and I.B.2

By FY 2016, a TBD% of resolutions 

by FEPAs contain targeted, equitable 

relief. 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE II

Performance Measure 8 for Strategy 

II.A.1

By FY 2016, the EEOC is 

maintaining TBD significant 

partnerships with organizations 

that represent vulnerable workers 

and/or underserved communities.

Performance Measure 9 for Strategy 

II.B.1

By FY 2016, the EEOC is 

maintaining TBD significant 

partnerships with organizations 

that represent small or new 

business (or with businesses 

directly).

Performance Measure 10 for 

Strategies II.A.1 and II.B.1

By FY 2013, the EEOC implements 

a social media plan.

Performance Measure 11 for 

Strategies II.A.2 and II.B.2

The EEOC reviews, updates, and/

or augments with plain language 

materials its sub-regulatory 

guidance, as necessary.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE III

Performance Measure 12 for 

Strategy III.A.1

The EEOC strengthens the skills 

and improves the diversity of its 

workforce.

Performance Measure 2 for Strategy 

I.A.2 and Strategy III.A.2

By FY 2016, TBD% of investigations 

and conciliations meet the criteria 

established in the new Quality 

Control Plan.

Performance Measure 3 for Strategy 

I.A.2 and Strategy III.A.2

By FY 2016, 100% of federal sector 

case inventory are categorized 

according to a new case 

management system and TBD% 

of hearings and appeals meet the 

criteria established in the new 

federal sector Quality Control Plan.

Performance Measure 13 for 

Strategy III.A.3

The EEOC improves the private 

sector charge process to 

streamline services and increase 

responsiveness to customers 

throughout the process.

Perfor

BUDGETARY RESOURCES MEASURE

Performance Measure 14

The EEOC’s budgetary resources for FY 2014–2017 

align with the Strategic Plan.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 13

Strat

Combat employmen

strategic l

Strategic Objective I, to combat employment discrimination through strategic law enforcement, reflects the EEOC’s primary mission of preventing unlawful employment 

discrimination through: 1) the administrative (investigation and conciliation) and litigation 

enforcement mechanisms Congress has given the agency with regard to private employers, labor 

organizations, employment agencies, and state and local government employers; and 2) the 

adjudicatory and oversight mechanisms Congress has given the agency with regard to federal 

employers. In keeping with the agency’s statutory mandate, the majority of the EEOC’s financial 

and human resources will be devoted to Strategic Objective I.18

There are two outcome goals for Strategic Objective I:

Outcome Goal I.A: Have a broad impact on reducing employment discrimination at the national 

and local levels; and

Outcome Goal I.B: Remedy discriminatory practices and secure meaningful relief for victims 

of discrimination.

In the past two years, the EEOC has annually received nearly 100,00019 individual private sector 

charges of discrimination and 14,000 federal sector requests for hearings and appeals.20 The 

large number of individual charges of discrimination, and federal sector requests for hearings 

and appeals that the EEOC receives has required the agency to think strategically about 

targeting its efforts to ensure the strongest impact possible in its efforts to stop unlawful 

employment discrimination.

In 1996, the Commission adopted a National Enforcement Plan and required District Offices 

to develop Local Enforcement Plans.21 These plans reviewed EEOC charge data, reassessed 

national and local enforcement needs, and set substantive priorities for equal employment law 

enforcement at both the national and local levels. In addition, the National Enforcement Plan 

delegated authority to the General Counsel to initiate litigation without the express vote of the 

Commission, except in limited circumstances. 

In 1995, the Commission adopted a Priority Charge Handling Procedures (PCHP) system to 

categorize and expedite the handling of its charge inventory and to allow the agency to focus 

its resources on strategic enforcement.22 The PCHP system was designed to work in tandem 

with the National Enforcement Plan so that agency investigators and litigators could focus 

their resources strategically. Of key importance, the PCHP system revoked an approach of “full 

investigation” under which Commission staff fully investigated every charge without making a 

preliminary assessment of the potential merits of the charge.
14 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

In 2000, the Commission developed an internal Comprehensive Enforcement Program that 

built on the National Enforcement Plan and created best practices for the internal workings of 

the agency. 

In 2006, the Commission adopted its Systemic Initiative.23 This Initiative makes the identification, 

investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination cases—pattern or practice, policy, and/

or class cases where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, 

company, or geographic area—a top priority. The Systemic Initiative also seeks to ensure that the 

EEOC has a coordinated, strategic, and effective approach to such cases. The Initiative requires 

the agency to effectively use its administrative and litigation tools—including Commissioner 

Charges, directed investigations, and the strategic use of empirical data—to identify and stop 

discriminatory policies and other instances of systemic discrimination.

The Commission has not updated the EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan since its adoption 

in 1996 and many District Offices no longer prepare Local Enforcement Plans. Instead, the 

administrative and litigation enforcement priorities of the agency have been updated through 

other means, such as the Systemic Initiative and the priorities announced by each Chair. While 

these means of priority setting are critical, they should complement and augment, not replace, 

an overall enforcement strategy. 

Moreover, while the PCHP system initially resulted in a significant reduction in the EEOC’s 

pending charge inventory,24 that inventory increased significantly between FY 2002 and 2008.25

The agency’s pending inventory continued to grow between FY 2008 and 2010, albeit more 

slowly.26 An independent evaluation of the PCHP system, conducted by the Federal Consulting 

Group between 2007 and 2009 and submitted to the Commission in 2011, indicated that 

a more rigorous and uniform implementation of the PCHP system across field offices was 

needed to ensure the agency met the demands of incoming charges.27 Rigorous and consistent 

implementation of PCHP is also required to ensure the agency targets its efforts on those 

charges that will have the broadest impact on stopping unlawful employment discrimination. To 

this end, the Chair has begun working on a Plan to Manage and Reduce the Charge Inventory, 

which identifies barriers to proper PCHP implementation and recommends solutions that will 

enable PCHP to be fully and properly implemented. The results have been positive, by FY 2010 

the EEOC’s field offices had slowed the growth of the pending charge inventory and by FY 2011 

reduced the pending charge inventory by nearly 8,000 charges—the first reduction in nearly a 

decade, even as the Commission received nearly 100,000 new charges in FY 2010 and FY 2011.28

As the EEOC works to rigorously enforce PCHP, a reduction in its charge inventory must not result 

in a reduction in the quality of investigations or premature closing of meritorious charges. One of 

the EEOC’s greatest challenges has been to create a system that rewards effective investigations 

and conciliations and does not incentivize the closure of charges simply to achieve closures. 

With this in mind, the EEOC’s strategies for achieving Outcome Goal I.A are:

Strategy I.A.1: Develop and implement a Strategic Enforcement Plan that: (1) establishes EEOC 

priorities and (2) integrates the EEOC’s investigation, conciliation and litigation responsibilities in 

In the past two 

years, the EEOC has 

annually received 

nearly 100,000 

individual private 

sector charges of 

discrimination and 

14,000 federal 

sector requests

for hearings and 

appeals.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 15

the private and state and local government sectors; adjudicatory and oversight responsibilities in 

the federal sector; and research, policy development, and education and outreach activities;

Strategy I.A.2: Rigorously and consistently implement charge and case management systems to 

focus resources and enforcement on EEOC priorities;

Strategy I.A.3: Use administrative and litigation mechanisms to identify and attack 

discriminatory policies and other instances of systemic discrimination; and

Strategy I.A.4: Use EEOC decisions and oversight activities to target discriminatory practices and 

policies in federal agencies.

The strategies for achieving Outcome Goal I.B are:

Strategy I.B.1: Ensure that remedies end discriminatory practices and deter future 

discrimination; and 

Strategy I.B.2: Seek remedies that provide meaningful relief to individual victims of 

discrimination. 

The Commission has developed six performance measures to track its progress in pursuing these 

strategies and one performance measure to track the progress of its state and local partners. 

Performance Measure 1 for Strategy I.A.1: By FY 2016, the EEOC develops, issues, implements, 

evaluates, and revises, as necessary, a Strategic Enforcement Plan. 

FY 2012 The agency develops a draft Strategic Enforcement Plan. 

The Commission votes on a Strategic Enforcement Plan no later than 

September 30, 2012. (See Appendix B for more details on the Plan’s 

development.) 

FY 2013 The agency distributes implementation guidance for the Strategic 

Enforcement Plan. 

The agency begins to implement the Strategic Enforcement Plan. 

If required in the Strategic Enforcement Plan, District Offices and 

the Office of Federal Operations develop local and federal sector 

enforcement plans by March 29, 2013. 

FY 2014 The agency fully implements the Strategic Enforcement Plan.

FY 2015 The Commission evaluates the Strategic Enforcement Plan.

FY 2016 The Commission revises and votes on a new Strategic Enforcement 

Plan, as necessary.

A Strategic 

Enforcement 

Plan... will ensure 

a targeted, 

concentrated, 

and deliberate 

effort to identify 

and pursue 

priority issues 

and practices....
16 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

A Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP), which would replace the current National Enforcement 

Program, will ensure a targeted, concentrated, and deliberate effort to identify and pursue 

priority issues and practices that significantly affect applicants, employees and employers. In 

addition to outlining substantive priorities, the plan may prioritize types of investigations and 

cases. The Commission will develop the SEP based on data derived from research, charges, and 

input from experts and stakeholders. 

The SEP will also further an integrated, holistic approach to enforcement by: 1) lowering the 

conceptual barrier between the EEOC’s work in the investigation and conciliation stage and 

its work in the litigation stage, 2) incorporating the EEOC’s oversight and adjudicatory work 

in the federal sector; and 3) integrating the agency’s education and outreach activities into its 

enforcement efforts. The result will be an EEOC where all of its operations work in tandem to 

achieve its mission of stopping and remedying unlawful employment discrimination.

As part of the development of the plan, the Commission will decide whether District Offices 

should develop local strategic enforcement plans and whether the Commission’s Office of 

Federal Operations should develop a federal sector enforcement plan. If so, these local and 

federal sector plans will complement and augment the national plan, but also reflect the needs 

of their respective offices. 

Work on the Strategic Enforcement Plan will begin in March 2012 and will be approved by the 

Commission no later than September 2012. The Commission will draw on the expertise of its 

staff from both Headquarters and throughout the field to ensure that a diversity of views is 

heard. In addition, as noted in Appendix B, the Commission will solicit the views of a range 

of stakeholders, including Congress, FEPAs, members of the plaintiffs and defense bars, and 

members of the general public. 

Performance Measure 2 for Strategy I.A.2 and Strategy III.A.2: By FY 2016, TBD% of 

investigations and conciliations meet the criteria established in a new Quality Control Plan. 

FY 2013 The agency develops a draft Quality Control Plan that establishes 

criteria to measure the quality of investigations and conciliations and 

develops a peer review assessment system. 

The Commission votes on a Quality Control Plan no later than February 

28, 2013. (See Appendix B for more details on the Plan’s development.)

FY 2014 Apply the criteria and the peer review assessment system to a 

statistically significant sample of investigations and conciliations. 

Based on that analysis, develop a baseline of existing quality and set 

targets for improved quality.

FY 2015 TBD% of investigations and conciliations meet targets for quality.

FY 2016 TBD% of investigations and conciliations meet targets for quality. 
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 17

Over the past several years, the EEOC has consistently met existing quality control goals for its 

investigations—usually achieving a performance rate of approximately 90%.29 However, the 

existing criteria used to rate quality do not capture the full range of components that must be 

present to guarantee a quality investigation and conciliation. For example, the current criteria 

measure whether a charge has been correctly categorized within the PCHP system and whether 

the charge has been correctly filed and updated in the agency’s data system. These criteria do 

not, however, measure whether charges are appropriately re-assessed on a timely basis, how 

efficient and timely the investigation has been, what the investigation actually consisted of, and 

whether the investigator correctly applied the law to the facts of the charge. 

Performance Measure 2 requires the Commission to develop appropriate criteria, such as these, 

for measuring the quality of investigations and conciliations. In addition, this measure requires 

the Commission to develop a peer review assessment system that will be used to judge the 

quality of investigations and conciliations.

Appendix C of the Strategic Plan sets forth a timeline for the Commission’s receipt of information 

from both internal and external stakeholders in order to develop an appropriate Quality Control 

Plan for investigations and conciliations.

Performance Measure 3 for Strategy I.A.2 and Strategy III.A.2: By FY 2016, 100% of federal 

sector case inventory is categorized according to a new case management system and TBD% 

of hearings and appeals meet the criteria established in the new Federal Sector Quality 

Control Plan.

FY 2013 Develop categories for federal sector cases. Develop, pilot and 

implement new processes and technology, ensuring appropriate 

guidance, documentation, and staff training.

FY 2014 100% of all incoming hearings requests and appeals and 50% of old 

case inventory are categorized. 

Develop a Federal Sector Quality Control Plan to establish criteria to 

measure the quality of federal sector hearings and appeals.

FY 2015 100% of incoming and old case inventory is categorized. 

Apply the quality criteria to a statistically significant sample of federal 

sector decisions (hearings and appeals), develop a baseline of quality, 

and set targets for improved quality. 

FY 2016 100% of incoming and old case inventory are categorized. 

TBD% of hearings and appeals meet targets for quality. 

The EEOC is responsible for holding hearings and reviewing and ruling on final agency decisions 

of discrimination complaints in the federal sector. As in the private sector, budgetary constraints 

have led to fewer available Administrative Judges and Office of Federal Operations Appellate 

The EEOC is 

responsible for 

holding hearings 

and reviewing and 

ruling on final 

agency decisions 

of discrimination 

complaints in the 

federal sector.
18 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Attorneys at a time when requests for hearings and appeals are increasing.30 These factors, 

coupled with a targeted focus under the agency’s prior strategic plan of resolving an increasing 

percentage of appeals in less than 180 days, contributed to a steady rise in the number of older 

appeals, as well as the overall age of the appellate inventory. 

Recent years have seen improvements. In FY 2011, the agency instituted a more balanced 

approach to the resolution of appeals, focusing on both new and old appeals, and employed 

innovative strategies to address the federal sector workload. The effect of this approach was 

dramatic.31 It is clear, however, that in the absence of greater budgetary resources, additional 

innovations will be needed to continue this trend.

As the agency has already done for private sector activities, this performance measure will create 

a new case management system for handling federal sector hearings and appeals. The measure 

will also create a new federal sector quality control plan. 

New Federal Sector Case Management System 

The Commission has never developed a formal categorization system for cases heard by its 

Administrative Judges (AJs) or for appeals to the EEOC. Rigorous implementation of a new case 

management system for federal sector hearings and appeals will enable the agency to bring 

consistency and greater efficiencies to the processing of federal sector complaints. In addition, 

such a system will allow the agency to track cases that raise priority issues set forth in its 

Strategic Enforcement Plan.

As a general matter, most AJs review their cases when they are assigned to determine if they can 

be settled or resolved quickly. But if an AJ receives a significant policy case, or a large class action 

case, the EEOC’s system for tracking the work of AJs does not sufficiently take into account the 

greater time and effort required for such cases. The same is true with regard to cases heard on 

appeal, in which opinions are drafted by EEOC attorneys. The new case management system will 

enable appropriate tracking of such work.

New Federal Sector Quality Control Plan

Ongoing quality assessments are done in the course of ordinary supervision for both AJs and 

Office of Federal Operations personnel.32 However, to parallel the private sector effort, the EEOC 

will develop appropriate criteria for measuring the quality of hearing decisions and appeals, and 

will apply those quality criteria to a significant sample of federal sector decisions to determine a 

baseline of quality and to set targets for improved quality. 

The Commission will consult with its AJs, its staff from the Office of Federal Operations, and 

outside stakeholders during these efforts.

Performance Measure 4 for Strategy I.A.3: By the end of FY 2016, TBD% of the cases in the 

agency’s litigation docket are systemic cases. 
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 19

FY 2012 Establish a baseline and project future targets.

FY 2013 Increase targets to TBD%.

FY 2014 Increase targets to TBD%.

FY 2015 Increase targets to TBD%.

FY 2016 Increase targets to TBD%.

Systemic cases are pattern or practice, policy, and/or class cases where the alleged discrimination 

has a broad impact on an industry, occupation, business, or geographic area. This performance 

measure will provide an incentive for the EEOC to conduct systemic investigations when it 

finds evidence of potential widespread discriminatory practices. This measure will also require 

the agency to prioritize the systemic cases it chooses to litigate and to bring fewer individual 

and small class claims of discrimination, since systemic litigation requires significantly greater 

resources than other types of litigation.

As the EEOC gradually increases the proportion of systemic cases in its litigation docket, 

the strategic selection of individual and small class cases will take on greater importance. In 

making these strategic selections, the Commission will be cognizant of its statutory mandate 

of preventing unlawful employment discrimination under all of the statutes it enforces, under 

all protected bases, and involving a wide range of employment actions. In addition, the 

Commission will be mindful that in some regions of the country, the federal government has an 

even greater role to play in ensuring individual victims of employment discrimination can seek 

legal redress. 

Performance Measure 5 for Strategy I.A.4: By FY 2016, the EEOC uses an integrated data 

system to identify potentially discriminatory policies or practices in federal agencies and has 

issued and evaluated TBD number of compliance plans to address areas of concern.

FY 2013 Create and implement a data system of complaint, hearing, and 

statistical employee data in order to establish priorities in the federal 

sector. 

FY 2014 Conduct TBD number of on-site program evaluations focused on 

identified priorities and issue compliance plans.

FY 2015 Conduct TBD number of on-site program evaluations focused on 

identified priorities and issue compliance plans.

FY 2016 Review compliance plans to determine if they have been 

implemented, and if not, determine what corrective action should 

be taken.
20 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The federal government is the largest employer in the United States. Thus, reducing unlawful 

employment discrimination in the federal sector is an integral part of achieving Strategic 

Objective I and fulfilling the mission of the agency. Moreover, as the largest employer in 

the United States, the federal government has tremendous influence over the employment 

practices of private and public employers in the United States and around the world. Thus, the 

promotion of equal employment opportunity in the federal government can positively impact 

all employees and job-seekers.

In order to do that, the EEOC must understand fully what equal employment trends exist in 

the federal government. This performance measure requires the EEOC to use the various data 

it already collects from federal agencies to develop an integrated data system that can identify 

potentially discriminatory policies or practices in the federal agencies and help set priorities for 

the prevention of discrimination in the federal government. 

The agency currently collects aggregate data regarding EEO complaints in federal agencies, 

agency diversity efforts, appeals, and compliance with appellate orders. An integrated data 

system, however, will allow the agency to collect, store, and link data that previously has been 

maintained in separate systems. The system will permit staff to perform more meaningful and 

comparative analyses of federal agencies’ equal employment opportunity and affirmative 

action programs. 

In keeping with its oversight authority, in FY 2014 and FY 2015, the EEOC will conduct a number 

of on-site program evaluations of federal agencies regarding priority areas that have been 

identified through the integrated data system and will issue compliance plans. These plans will 

include a series of steps for federal agencies to take to correct any discriminatory practices. The 

number of on-site evaluations will be determined based on the baseline set in FY 2013. In FY 

2016, the EEOC will review the compliance plans issued in FY 2014 and FY 2015 to determine if 

they have been implemented successfully, and if not, what corrective action should be taken.

Performance Measure 6 for Strategies I.B.1 and I.B.2: By FY 2016, a TBD% of the EEOC’s 

administrative and legal resolutions contain targeted, equitable relief.

FY 2013 Collect data on the percentage of administrative and legal resolutions 

currently containing targeted, equitable relief. Establish baseline of 

existing targeted, equitable relief in resolutions and project future 

targets for different types of targeted, equitable relief. 

FY 2014 Increase targets by TBD% or maintain targets.

FY 2015 Increase targets by TBD% or maintain targets.

FY 2016 Increase targets by TBD% or maintain targets.

The federal 

government is the 

largest employer 

in the United 

States.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 21

Performance Measure 7 for Strategy I.B.1 and 1.B.2: By FY 2016, a TBD% of resolutions by 

FEPAs contain targeted, equitable relief.

FY 2012 In conjunction with FEPAs, identify, design, and implement reporting 

process(es) to determine what percentage of resolutions by FEPAs 

contain targeted, equitable relief.

FY 2013 Collects data from FEPAs, establishes baseline of existing targeted, 

equitable relief in resolutions and project future targets for different 

types of targeted, equitable relief.

FY 2014 FEPAs increase targets by TBD% or maintain targets.

FY 2015 FEPAs increase targets by TBD% or maintain targets.

FY 2016 FEPAs increase targets by TBD% or maintain targets.

An important activity undertaken by both the EEOC and state and local FEPAs is negotiating 

resolutions of charges after an investigation has determined that there is reasonable cause 

to believe that unlawful employment discrimination has occurred. It is neither appropriate 

nor feasible to set a target for the number of reasonable cause determinations the agency 

makes since every investigation is dependent on the particular facts of the case. However, it is 

appropriate to set a goal for the type of relief that should be sought in resolutions of cases once 

reasonable cause has been found. 

Performance Measures 6 and 7 are designed to encourage the EEOC and the FEPAs to seek 

relief in these cases that goes beyond compensatory or punitive damages for individual 

victims of discrimination. While it is important that the EEOC and FEPAs seek meaningful 

relief for individuals, the ultimate interest of government agencies must be to protect 

not only the original charging parties, but all employees and job-seekers from unlawful 

discriminatory practices. 

Targeted, equitable relief means any non-monetary and non-generic relief (other than the 

posting of notices in the workplace about the case and its resolution), which explicitly addresses 

the discriminatory employment practices at issue in the case, and which provides remedies to 

the aggrieved individuals or prevents similar violations in the future. Such relief may include 

training for supervisors and employees, development of policies and practices to deter future 

discrimination, and external monitoring of employer actions, as appropriate. 

For example, injunctive provisions barring the specific kind of discrimination at issue in a 

case qualify as targeted, case-specific equitable relief; i.e., “enjoined from race discrimination 

against African Americans in hiring accountants at [facilities covered by the case].” However, 

provisions which merely bar discrimination in broad statutory terms would not qualify under 

the definition; e.g., “enjoined from engaging in race discrimination,” or “enjoined from violating 
22 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Title VII.” Likewise, requirements for EEO training of managers, supervisors, and HR employees 

that explicitly address the kind of discriminatory practices at issue in a case qualify under 

the definition; e.g., “training to address issues of, and remedies for, sexual harassment in the 

workplace” or “training to address the procedures for providing reasonable accommodations 

to a qualified individual with a disability.” However, training would not be included within the 

definition if it merely provided an overview of Title VII, ADA, ADEA, and EPA requirements.

The Strategic Enforcement Plan will also provide examples of using resolutions to discourage 

employers, other than the respondent, from engaging in similar discriminatory practices. 
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 23

Strate

Prevent employment discrimin

Strategic Objective II, to prevent employment discrimination through education and outreach, 

reflects the fact that the EEOC must also work to prevent employment discrimination before 

it occurs. Investigations, conciliations and litigation are only some of the means by which the 

EEOC fulfills its mission and vision. In Title VII, Congress expressly required the agency to engage 

in education and outreach activities, including providing training and technical assistance, for 

those with rights and responsibilities under employment antidiscrimination laws. 

Educational and outreach programs, projects, and events are also cost effective law enforcement 

tools because they promote understanding of the law and voluntary compliance with the law. 

All parties, including the American taxpayer, benefit when the workplace is free of discrimination 

and everyone has access to equal employment opportunity.

To this end, the two outcome goals for Strategic Objective II are:

Outcome Goal II.A: Members of the public understand and know how to exercise their right to 

employment free of discrimination; and 

Outcome Goal II.B: Employers, unions and employment agencies (covered entities) better 

address and resolve EEO issues, thereby creating more inclusive workplaces.

The EEOC is required to target its education and outreach program to those persons “who 

historically have been victims of employment discrimination and have not been equitably 

served by the Commission” and to “individuals on whose behalf the Commission has authority 

to enforce” any law prohibiting employment discrimination.33 Such programs are to include 

information on rights and obligations under the law. The Commission also believes it is 

important to target subsets of people within protected classes, such as persons of color under 

the age of 30 or low-skilled workers and new immigrants who may be unfamiliar with the 

nation’s equal employment laws. 

Moreover, it is also important for the agency to target underserved subsets of the employer 

community, including small and new businesses. Given their size and limited resources, such 

businesses are often less able to take advantage of the EEOC’s training programs and are 

less likely to have in-house human resources professionals to assist them with compliance. 

In early FY 2012, the agency launched a Small Business Task Force to address issues faced by 

small businesses. It is clear, based on preliminary information collected by that Task Force, that 

additional efforts are needed to reach small businesses. In addition, the agency has found that 

new businesses, many of which are small businesses, also need greater targeted outreach. 

In all of these activities, the EEOC is required, by statute, to “cooperate with other departments 

and agencies in the performance of such educational and promotional activities.”34 The state 

and local FEPAs are important collaborators in this regard, as are the regional offices of the 

Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. 
24 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Part of the EEOC’s efforts to strengthen and target its education and outreach activities will also 

include an improved Internet and social media presence. The EEOC’s current website provides 

critical educational materials, including information on the laws that the agency enforces, 

the private sector charge and federal sector complaint processes, and various publications. 

Moreover, the agency is engaged in an ongoing effort to make its website more user-friendly 

and accessible.

Despite these efforts to modernize, the EEOC is not fully leveraging the Internet to directly reach 

its customers—employees; job-seekers; private, state, local and federal employers; unions; 

employment agencies; attorneys; judges; issue advocates; and policymakers. In addition, the 

EEOC has not yet used social media to promote its education and outreach activities and to 

encourage greater use of its website. 

Finally, many of the agency’s sub-regulatory documents need to be reviewed and updated 

and/or augmented with plain language materials so that employers, employees and applicants 

understand their rights and responsibilities under the law.

To this end, there are three strategies for achieving the goals of Strategic Objective II:

Strategy II.A.1: Target outreach to vulnerable workers and underserved communities; 

Strategy II.B.1: Target outreach to small and new businesses; and 

Strategy II.A.2 and II.B.2: Provide up-to-date and accessible guidance on the requirements of 

employment antidiscrimination laws.

The Commission has developed four performance measures to track its progress in pursuing 

these strategies. 

In FY 2011, the EEOC’s outreach program organized more than 6,200 no-cost outreach and 

education activities across the nation for those in both the private sector and government 

sectors. The EEOC Training Institute conducted 480 fee-based training and technical assistance 

events for those in both the private sector and government sectors. In total, these activities 

were attended by nearly 540,000 individuals.35 Included in that number are representatives of 

more than 63,000 employers or other covered entities. These events have been well attended 

and successful and the EEOC expects to continue to offer this training and technical assistance. 

However, the Commission does not believe that a focus solely on the number of events held 

or number of attendees is the best way to measure its public education impact, particularly in 

an era of constrained resources. Thus, Performance Measures 8 and 9 are focused on rewarding 

and encouraging interactive and sustained partnerships with community organizations and 

businesses that are in the communities we are trying to reach. 

Part of the 

EEOC’s efforts 

to strengthen 

and target its 

education and 

outreach activities 

will also include an 

improved Internet 

and social media

presence.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 25

Performance Measure 8 for Strategy II.A.1: By FY 2016, the EEOC is maintaining TBD 

significant partnerships with organizations that represent vulnerable workers and/or 

underserved communities.

FY 2012 Provide a more detailed definition of significant partnerships; provide 

instructions for identifying organizations that represent vulnerable 

workers and/or underserved communities in a geographic area; collect 

examples of existing significant partnerships with such organizations; 

and share best practices across EEOC offices.

Establish a baseline of existing significant partnerships and set 

national targets.

FY 2013 The number of significant partnerships with organizations that 

represent vulnerable workers and/or underserved communities 

increases by TBD, nationally.

FY 2014 The number of significant partnerships with organizations that 

represent vulnerable workers and/or underserved communities 

increases by TBD, nationally.

FY 2015 The number of significant partnerships with organizations that 

represent vulnerable workers and/or underserved communities is 

maintained, nationally.

FY 2016 The number of significant partnerships with organizations that 

represent vulnerable workers and/or underserved communities is 

maintained, nationally.
26 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Performance Measure 9 for Strategy II.B.1: By FY 2016, the EEOC is maintaining TBD 

significant partnerships with organizations that represent small or new businesses (or with 

businesses directly).

FY 2012 Provide a more detailed definition of significant partnerships; provide 

instructions for identifying organizations that represent small or new 

businesses (or for identifying individual businesses); collect examples 

of existing significant partnerships with such organizations or 

businesses; and share best practices across EEOC offices.

Create a baseline of existing significant partnerships and set 

national targets.

FY 2013 The number of significant partnerships with organizations that 

represent small or new businesses (or with businesses directly) 

increases by TBD, nationally.

FY 2014 The number of significant partnerships with organizations that 

represent small or new businesses (or with businesses directly) 

increases by TBD, nationally.

FY 2015 The number of significant partnerships with organizations that 

represent small or new businesses (or with businesses directly) is 

maintained, nationally.

FY 2016 The number of significant partnerships with organizations that 

represent small or new businesses (or with businesses directly) is 

maintained, nationally.

Due to the varied size, capacity, geographic area covered, and focus of each EEOC field office, 

the implementation of these measures will require that some offices increase their number of 

significant partnerships in FY 2013 while other offices will simply need to maintain their current 

number. Each office’s needs and capabilities will be assessed in FY 2012 as part of setting overall 

targets for the agency. 

While a more detailed definition for significant partnerships will be issued in FY 2012, examples 

of existing partnerships for Performance Measures 8 and 9 include:

•	 Partnering with the local Mexican Consulate and high school interns to record English 

and Spanish audio public service announcements targeting farm worker youth at risk of 

sexual abuse on the job. 

•	 Partnering with a local Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center to conduct 

webinars, co-host community events on the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments 

Act (ADAAA), and participate in its disability trainer network.

•	 Partnering with the local Chamber of Commerce’s small business division to increase the 

EEOC’s presence at monthly meetings so that owners can ask questions of the EEOC directly. 
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 27

•	 Partnering with a local university’s Human Resources Management program to co-host a 

free, educational event for small businesses. 

Performance Measure 10 for Strategies II.A.1 and II.B.1: By FY 2013, the EEOC implements a 

social media plan. 

FY 2012 Establish a Social Media Working Group; set a baseline and determine 

the appropriate technology needed to implement social media and 

information distribution systems; and draft initial social media strategy. 

FY 2013 Implement the social media plan.

FY 2014 Assess plan and update, as necessary. 

This performance measure will ensure that the EEOC moves into the 21st Century by utilizing 

social media technologies to reach EEOC’s customers. 

The social media plan will build upon existing efforts to make the content on EEOC’s website 

more accessible and user-friendly and better use the Internet and other technology in the 

private and state and local government sectors and federal sector charge processes. It will use 

multiple forms of social media platforms, and educational content appropriate for each platform, 

with the goal of informing users about their rights and responsibilities under the laws the agency 

enforces. The plan will drive EEOC’s customers to the agency’s website for more information. 

Moreover, the plan will ensure that the EEOC’s social media strategies are consistent with the 

Strategic Enforcement Plan, the Chair’s priorities, and other appropriate directives. 

Performance Measure 11 for Strategies II.A.2 and II.B.2: The EEOC reviews, updates, and/or 

augments with plain language materials its sub-regulatory guidance, if necessary.

This performance measure will ensure that the EEOC’s sub-regulatory guidance and documents 

are reviewed and that, where necessary, they are updated and accompanied by plain 

language text.

The agency’s enforcement work in the private sector, its adjudicatory and oversight work in 

the federal sector, and its outreach and education work all depend on the availability of upto-date and accessible materials explaining the laws it enforces and how to comply with those 

laws. While the regulations issued by the Commission set the basic legal framework for the 

implementation of those laws, sub-regulatory materials, including the EEOC’s Compliance 

Manual, provide more tangible assistance to those with rights and responsibilities under such 

laws. These materials may or may not require a vote of the Commission and may include a range 

of guidances, best practices, Q & A’s, and fact sheets.
28 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Strateg

Deliver excellent and consstent

dierse wor kforce

Strategic Objective III is intended to ensure that the EEOC delivers excellent and consistent 

service through supporting a skilled workforce and deploying effective systems. 

Much of this objective is operational in nature and will be addressed in greater detail in plans 

external to the Strategic Plan. This does not, however, diminish the importance of this objective. 

The EEOC cannot accomplish Strategic Objectives I and II without addressing issues regarding its 

staff and infrastructure. In recognition of this, and to ensure the agency is held accountable for 

improving its operations where necessary, the Commission is including Strategic Objective III in 

its Strategic Plan. 

For the purposes of the Strategic Plan, Strategic Objective III’s primary goal is:

Outcome Goal III.A: All interactions with the public are timely, of high quality, and informative.

As noted in Strategic Objective I, it is a significant Commission priority to improve the timeliness 

and ensure the continued quality of its enforcement activities in the private, state and local 

government, and federal sectors. To this end, the agency is currently working to make its systems 

more effective by rigorously and consistently implementing PCHP and requiring a new Quality 

Control Plan in the private and state and local government sectors and a new categorization 

system and new Quality Control Plan in the federal sector. 

In addition to these steps, the EEOC must also invest in the men and women who carry out its 

mission day-to-day. Ensuring that each staff member is highly skilled is a critical element in the 

effort to make all interactions with the public timely, of high quality, and informative. To keep up 

with the evolving needs of the modern workplace and any changes in EEO law interpretation, 

the EEOC must invest adequately in workforce development and planning. 

Moreover, given the agency’s mission and the nature of its work, it is also important that the 

EEOC’s workforce be diverse. The agency must not only serve as an example to other private, 

state and local government, and federal employers, it should reflect the populations it serves.

Finally, to improve its customer service, the EEOC must ensure the effectiveness of its systems 

by leveraging technology to streamline, standardize, and expedite the charge process across its 

field offices—from the pre-charge intake to the start of the litigation process. Similarly, the EEOC 

must leverage technology for purposes of its federal sector hearings and appeals. In all sectors, 

technology should be used to keep parties informed about the progress of a charge or case 

throughout the process. 

As a result, there are three strategies for achieving Strategic Objective III’s outcome goal:

Strategy III.A.1: Effectively engage in workforce development and planning, including 

identifying, cultivating, and sustaining a skilled and diverse workforce.

The EEOC cannot 

accomplish 

Strategic 

Objectives I and II

without addressing 

issues regarding 

its staff and 

infrastructure.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 29

Strategy III.A.2: Rigorously and consistently implement charge and case management systems 

to deliver excellent and consistent service; and 

Strategy III.A.3: Use innovative technology to facilitate responsive interactions and streamline 

agency processes.

There are four performance measures for these strategies, including two that are included in 

Strategic Objective I:

Performance Measure 12 for Strategy III.A.1: The EEOC strengthens the skills and improves 

the diversity of its workforce.

The EEOC is currently in the process of developing and implementing plans that will strengthen 

the skills and improve the diversity of its workforce, but the inclusion of this measure in 

the Strategic Plan, sends a signal to the EEOC’s internal and external stakeholders that the 

Commission takes seriously its commitment to have a skilled and diverse workforce. 

The Strategic Human Capital Plan (SHCP) outlines the agency’s structure, strategic goals, 

standards for success, and major human capital initiatives. Its alignment with the Strategic Plan 

will ensure that EEOC employees understand and support the agency’s goals and approach, and 

have the skills, knowledge, and competencies necessary to perform their important work. The 

SHCP is developed, monitored, and modified pursuant to the principles and requirements set 

forth in the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF). Beginning in FY 

2012, and annually thereafter, the agency will establish human capital goals for the ensuing fiscal 

year that are aligned with the Strategic Plan and linked with the HCAAF measures. At the end of 

each target year, the agency will complete an assessment of its progress and publish its findings 

in the Performance Accountability Report.

The EEOC’s Operational Plan for Increasing Employment of Individuals with Disabilities was 

released in FY 2012, pursuant to Executive Order 13548 on Increasing Federal Employment 

of Individuals with Disabilities. The EEOC’s plan set a target of increasing the percentage of 

employees with targeted disabilities to 5% and increasing the percentage of employees with 

disabilities covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act to 20% of the EEOC workforce 

within five years. That plan is currently being implemented.

The EEOC’s Diversity and Inclusion Plan is under development pursuant to Executive Order 13583 

on Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in 

the Federal Workforce. The plan will be released in FY 2012 and will be modeled after the plan 

developed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in partnership with the EEOC, for all 

federal agencies. The EEOC will continue to work with OPM and the Office of Management and 

Budget in implementing this Government-wide initiative, including reviewing executive agency 

plans and working to reconcile the Presidential Administration’s diversity and inclusion efforts 

with the EEOC’s Management Directive 715 requirements.36

Performance Measure 2 for Strategy I.A.2 and Strategy III.A.2: By FY 2016, TBD% of 

investigations and conciliations meet the criteria established in a new Quality Control Plan. 

(See above.)

The EEOC is 

currently in 

the process of 

developing and 

implementing 

plans that will 

strengthen the 

skills and improve 

the diversity of its 

workforce...
30 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Performance Measure 3 for Strategy I.A.2 and Strategy III.A.2: By FY 2016, 100% of federal 

sector case inventory are categorized according to a new case management system and TBD% of 

hearings and appeals meeting the criteria established in the new federal sector Quality Control 

Plan. (See above.)

Performance Measure 13 for Strategy III.A.3: The EEOC improves the private sector charge 

process to streamline services and increase responsiveness to customers throughout the process.

FY 2012 Define technology requirements, automated workflow, customer 

self-service opportunities, and system design specifications and 

establish targets.

FY 2013 Develop, pilot and implement new processes and technology in 

a phased and iterative manner, ensuring appropriate guidance, 

documentation and staff training.

FY 2014 Meet targets determined in FY 2012.

FY 2015 Meet targets determined in FY 2012.

FY 2016 Meet targets determined in FY 2012.

This performance measure will require the EEOC to leverage technology to improve the private 

and state and local government sectors charge process, including streamlining services and 

increasing responsiveness to customers throughout the process. 

Initiatives that are currently in the requirements phase include: 1) developing an on-line system 

that will allow potential charging parties to submit a pre-charge inquiry for review; 2) providing 

on-line scheduling of appointments for intake interviews (via on-site meetings, web cams, and/

or teleconference); 3) providing charging parties on-line access to check the status of their 

charge; 4) streamlining the intake process through automated workflow and data analysis; and 5) 

establishing a secure portal for electronic transmittal and receipt of charge-related documents. 

While not addressed in this measure, the agency is near completion on efforts to leverage 

technology to improve the federal sector complaint process. Several initiatives will be completed 

in FY 2012 and FY 2013, including allowing complainants to electronically submit requests for 

hearings and appeals, check the status of their hearing/appeal on-line, and securely transmit and 

receive documents related to their hearing or appeal.

The EEOC is also reviewing requirements related to data collection, integration, and automated 

analysis that will increase efficiency and cross-office communication in two core areas: EEOC’s 

Mediation Program and Systemic Charge Processing.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 31

Budge

Performance Measure 14: The EEOC’s budgetary resources for FY 2014–2017 align with the 

Strategic Plan. 

At every level within the EEOC, a common understanding of how the strategic priorities direct 

the work of the Agency is necessary for success. Although the Chair is already required to match 

the agency’s fiscal priorities with its strategic priorities as identified in its strategic plans and 

annual performance plans, this performance measure’s inclusion in the Strategic Plan will ensure 

greater accountability for doing so in each programmatic office and for the Commission as 

a whole.37

Budgets should adequately fund priority programs, grow such programs to reflect the priorities, 

and protect against diminution when budgets are reduced. Accordingly, with direction from the 

Chair, budget submissions from each program office will explain how resources implement the 

strategies and goals of the Strategic Plan, which includes the Strategic Enforcement Plan. The 

Chair will examine the current allocation of resources and re-allocate resources, as needed, to 

align the agency’s budget with the Strategic Plan in each fiscal year.
32 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

External

of S

Many factors outside the EEOC’s control will affect its ability to achieve the objectives set forth in the Strategic Plan. These factors include upcoming budgetary changes, 

demographic changes in the country, court decisions, passage of new laws, and technological 

advances. The Commission contemplated the following external factors in drafting this plan. 

•	 Budgetary Factors. As noted above, the Strategic Plan assumes no significant funding 

increases for fiscal years 2013–2016. Therefore, while budgetary decreases would not 

change the overall structure of the plan, they would impact how quickly the agency could 

achieve some of the plan’s objectives. Regardless of budgetary changes, the Commission 

will continue to review available resources and priorities to ensure the appropriate 

allocation of funds across program areas.

•	 Demographic Factors. Demographic changes in the country, including migration 

patterns, educational levels of the population, the aging of the population, and the 

size of the population, will necessarily impact the EEOC’s work. For example, national 

origin discrimination is often centered in areas with large immigrant populations. An 

office located in those areas will develop an expertise in workplace discrimination issues 

facing immigrants and will tailor its education and outreach efforts accordingly. As those 

populations migrate around the country, other offices will have to do the same. Moreover, 

as populations shift, the agency may need to reassess the size and location of its offices. 

•	 Legal Factors. All federal agencies are impacted by legal changes, but this is particularly 

true of law enforcement agencies, such as the EEOC. U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of 

the laws EEOC enforces may require the agency to issue updated guidance and regulations. 

Moreover, these rulings may impact the substantive priorities adopted by the Commission 

and/or may result in additional charges being filed with the agency. For example, the 

Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes38 to deny class certification for nearly 1.5 million female 

employees may result in some of those claimants filing sex discrimination charges against 

the company with the EEOC. Moreover, if new laws are passed under the EEOC’s jurisdiction, 

then the implementation of those laws will necessarily affect the substantive priorities of 

the agency. 

•	 Technological Factors. Changes in technology will impact how the EEOC interacts with its 

customers. When the previous Strategic Plan was drafted, Facebook was not as pervasive as 

it is today; Twitter had only been in existence a few months; and hand-held tablets did not 

exist. Each of these technologies is now commonplace and much of the public expects the 

EEOC to utilize them in its enforcement and education and outreach activities. While the 

Strategic Plan requires the creation and implementation of a social media plan to use these 

technologies, future technologies are likely to emerge that will also require a response.

Given all of the above factors, the EEOC will continually assess and prioritize its resources to 

successfully accomplish its mission over the next four to five years. 

...The EEOC will 

continually assess

and prioritize 

its resources 

to successfully 

accomplish its 

mission over the 

next five years.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 33

Pro

Program evaluation is an important component of the EEOC’s effort to assure that its programs are operating as intended and achieving results. A program evaluation is a 

thorough examination of program design and/or operational effectiveness that uses rigorous 

methodologies and statistical and analytical tools. Evaluations also use expertise internal and 

external to the agency and the program under review to enhance the analytical perspectives and 

lend credence to the methodologies employed, the evaluation processes and findings, and any 

subsequent recommendations.

Independent program evaluations have played an important role in formulating the strategic 

objectives and performance goals for the new FY 2012–2016 Strategic Plan. They have helped 

to shape some of the program issues and key focus areas for improvement, thereby increasing 

the plan’s value as a management tool to guide the agency’s strategic efforts in attaining overall 

productivity and program efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. To that end, EEOC has 

undertaken the following program evaluations to advance its performance-based management 

initiatives under the Government Performance and Results Management Act (GPRAMA), and to 

improve the effectiveness of key agency programs. The findings and recommendations in these 

independent assessments of the agency’s programs were used to guide development of its new 

strategic direction and objectives for the next four to five years.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Organizing for the Future, National Academy of Public 

Administration (NAPA), February 2003.

Evaluation of Intake and End of Fiscal Year Closure of the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission Private Sector Charge Process, Development Services Group (DSG), Inc, 

November 2006.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Customer Satisfaction and Knowledge of Law Study 

Final Report, Federal Consulting Group (FCG), December 2008.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – Office of Inspector General, Evaluation 

of the Management of the EEOC’s State and Local Programs, Williams, Adley & Company-DC, LLP, 

March 2011.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Evaluation of the Priority Charge Handling 

Procedures Report, Federal Consulting Group (FCG), December 2010.

Consistent with the Administration’s focus on improving the effectiveness of Government 

through rigorous evaluation and evidence-based policy initiatives, the EEOC will identify 

appropriate program areas for evaluation during the preparation of its GPRAMA Annual 

Performance Plans. This will ensure that its efforts align with its budget and other programmatic 

priorities. Each year, the agency will assess its progress and reaffirm its commitment to fulfilling 

its mission.
34 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Ac

The EEOC’s Fiscal Years 2012–2016 Strategic Plan was a collaborative endeavor, involving many EEOC employees and contractors. A special thank you is owed the leaders and members 

of the Strategic Planning Workgroup and Performance Measurement Group (Appendix A). 

The Commission would like to acknowledge and thank all contributors for their hard work 

and commitment to completing this plan, and more importantly, to fulfilling the mission and 

realizing the vision of the agency. 
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 35

Appendix A—

Strategic Plan Workgro

Leadership

Claudia A. Withers, Chief Operating Officer and Performance Improvement Officer

Chai R. Feldblum, Commissioner

Deidre Flippen, Director, Office of Research, Information and Planning and Deputy Performance 

Improvement Officer

Executive Team

Dona Bland, Senior Analyst, Office of Research Information and Planning

Joi O. Chaney, Special Assistant, Office of the Chair

Sharon Masling, Chief of Staff, Office of Commissioner Chai Feldblum

Members

Brett Brenner, Deputy Director, Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs

Dexter Brooks, Director of Federal Sector Programs, Office of Federal Operations

Robert Canino, Regional Attorney, Dallas District Office

Ronald Crenshaw, Human Resources Specialist, Office of Human Resources

Reuben Daniels, District Director, Charlotte District

Marty Ebel, Deputy Director, Houston District Office

Lynn Gagyi, Lead Investigator, Cleveland Field Office

Elizabeth Grossman, Regional Attorney, New York District Office

Irene Hill, Attorney Advisor to the Director of Office of Field Programs 

Keith Hill, Director, New Orleans Field Offic

Patricia Jaramillo, Enforcement Manager, Chicago District Office

Paul Kehoe, Attorney Advisor, Commissioner Victoria Lipni

Christopher Lage, Assistant General Counsel, Office General Counsel
36 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Members (continued)

Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counse

Spencer Lewis, District Director, Philadelphia District Office

Gabrielle Martin, President, National Council of EEOC Locals No. 216

Pierrette McIntire, Deputy Chief Information Officer and Chief Security Officer, 

Office of Information Technology 

Melissa Miller, Division Director, Appeals Division B, Office of Federal Operations

Levi Morrow, Chief Negotiator, National Council of EEOC Locals No. 216 

Susan Murphy, Special Assistant, Office of Commissioner Constance Barker

Sue Noh, Trial Attorney, Los Angeles District Office

Christine Park-Gonzalez, Program Analyst, Los Angeles District Office 

Gerald Patterson, Human Resources Specialist, Office of Human Resources

Joy Pentz, Enforcement Manager, Indianapolis District Office

Francis Polito, Supervisory Administrative Judge, Philadelphia District Office

Rosemarie Rhodes, ADR Coordinator, Atlanta District Office

Germaine Roseboro, Director, Planning and Systems Services Division, 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Valerie Sandy, IT Project Manager, Immediate Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

Office of Information Technology 

Jerome Scanlan, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel

Wilma Scott, Director, Jackson Area Office

Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Commissioner Stuart Ishimaru 

Steven Zanowic, Special Assistant, Office of Commissioner Chai Feldblum
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 37

Appendi 

Enfocem

Quali

Strategic Enforcem

March 2012 The Chair designates the Strategic Enforcement Plan Workgroup 

to develop a draft Strategic Enforcement Plan for the 

Commission’s consideration.

April–June 2012 Internal briefings conducted by relevant EEOC programmatic 

offices for the Commission on current trends in employment 

discrimination and on current activities of the offices. 

Public town hall for stakeholders to provide suggestions to the 

Commission on the enforcement priorities of the agency. 

July–August 2012 Workgroup circulates a draft of the plan to the Commission.

Workgroup releases a draft of the plan for public comment.

September 2012 The Commission votes on a plan no later than 

September 30, 2012.

Quality Control Plan (Private and S

Sectors

August 2012 The Chair designates the Quality Control Plan Workgroup 

to develop a draft Quality Control Plan for the Commission’s 

consideration.

September–

November 2012

Internal briefings conducted by relevant EEOC programmatic 

offices for the Commission on current quality of investigations 

and conciliations.

Public town hall for stakeholders to provide suggestions to the 

Commission on investigations and conciliations by the agency.

December 2012–

January 2013 

The Workgroup circulates a draft of the plan to the Commission.

The Workgroup releases a draft of the plan for public comment.

February 2013 The Commission votes on a plan no later than February 28, 2013. 
38 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Appendix C—EE

Commission

Jacqueline A. Berrien, 

Chair

Stuart J. Ishimaru, 

Commissioner

Constance S. Barker, 

Commissioner

Chai R. Feldblum, 

Commissioner

Victoria A. Lipnic, 

Commissioner

General Counsel

P. David Lopez, 

General Counsel

COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR CHAIR COMMISSIONER 

GENER

COUN

FIELD OFF

LEGAL DIVIS

THE COMMIS

Office of 

General Counse

Office of 

Inspector General

Office of 

Field Program

EXECUT

SECRETAR

FIELD OF

DISTRICT, FIELD, 

AREA, AND LOCAL

Office of 

Equal Opportunity

Office of Communications

and Legislative Affair

Office of 

Federal Operation

Office of 

Information 

Technolog

Office of 

Chief Financia

Officer

Office of 

Human Resource

Office of 

Legal Couns

Office of Research, 

Information, and 

Planning
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 39

E

1 See 5 U.S.C.§306.

2 See 31 U.S.C. §115 (2006).

3 See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-4 (2006).

4 Id.

5 See 42 U.S.C. §2000e (2006).

6 See 29 U.S.C. §621 (2006).

7 See 29 U.S.C. §206(d) (2006).

8 See 29 U.S.C. §791 (2006).

9 See 42 U.S.C. §12101 (2006).

10 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff et seq.

11 See Exec. Order No. 12067, 3 C.F.R., 1978 Comp., p. 206.

12 See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) (2006).

13 See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(b) (2006).

14 See FEPA Fourth Quarter FY 2011 Data Summary Report and Fact Sheet.

15 ADR is also available throughout federal complaint process.

16 See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.

17 Complainants who file charges under the ADEA or the EPA may bypass the administrative process after appropriate 

notice has been provided their agency and the EEOC.

18 The Strategic Plan is based on an assumption of stable staffing and budgetary resources over the next four years, with 

additional funding provided to account for salary and inflationary increases.

19 See Charge Statistics FY 1997 Through 2010, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeo

statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm; Fiscal Year 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, Equal Employmen

Opportunity Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/2011par.cfm

20 See Fiscal Year 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/2011par.cfm. 

21 National Enforcement Plan, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1996)

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/nep.cfm (The Commission adopted a motion to develop plan in 1995.).
40 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

22 See Paul M. Igasaki & Paul Steven Miller, Priority Charge Handling Task Force and Litigation Task Force Report, Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (Mar. 1998), http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_reports/charge_handling.cfm (review

both the PCHP system and the National Enforcement Plan).

23 See Leslie E. Silverman et al., Systemic Task Force Report, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mar. 2006)

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_reports/systemic.cfm. 

24 In fiscal years 1996 through 2000, the Commission received approximately 80,000 charges per year, similar to 

the number of charges it received each year in the four years prior to the implementation of PCHP. In addition, 

the number of investigators available to investigate charges—approximately 790—remained relatively constant. 

Nonetheless, despite similar resources, there was a significant decrease in the pending inventory of charges following 

implementation of PCHP—from 111,451 pending charges in June 1995 to 52,011 at the end of FY 1998 to 34,297 

at the end of FY 2000. The hiring of additional staff in FY 2000—in that year, the Commission had 857 available 

investigators—allowed the Commission to reduce the pending charge inventory to 29,041 by FY 2002. In FY 2002, the 

average workload per available investigator was 159 charges (average caseload is 37 charges) and the average time 

before a charge was resolved was 171 days. See generally Archives of EEOC Performance and Accountability Reports, 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/archives/annualreports/index.cf

25 Beginning in FY 2002, because of flat funding or increases that did not cover increases in its fixed costs, the EEOC’s 

needs began to outpace its available resources. This fiscal reality led to a significant loss of personnel, including 

a reduction in the number of available investigators—from 857 in FY 2000 to 565 in FY 2007, a 34% decline in 

investigator staffing levels. At the same time the Commission was experiencing an increase in the number of charges 

filed—from 84,442 charges in FY 2002 to a then record 95,402 in FY 2008. By FY 2009 there were 85,768 pending 

charges in the inventory, up from 73,959 the previous year. Moreover, by FY 2009, the average workload of an 

investigator was 300 charges (average caseload is 148) and the average time before a charge was resolved was 294 

days. See generally Archives of EEOC Performance and Accountability Reports, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/archives/annualreports/index.cfm.

26 In FY 2009, the Commission began to reverse the upward trend of pending inventory. Budgetary increases allowed 

the agency to hire additional front-line staff, including 131 investigators (with losses, the agency gained a net of 91 

new investigators). In addition, there was a renewed focus on PCHP implementation. See generally Archives of EEOC 

Performance and Accountability Reports, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/pla

archives/annualreports/index.cfm.

27 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Evaluation of the Priority Charge Handling Procedures Report, 

Federal Consulting Group (FCG), December 2010, available at http://www.eeoc.gov/. 

28 See Fiscal Year 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/2011par.cfm.

29 See Fiscal Year 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/2011par.cfm; Fiscal Year 2010 Performance and Accountability Report, Equal Employmen

Opportunity Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/2010par.cfm.
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012–2016 41

30 For example, in FY 2011 there were 5,176 new appeals filed, an increase of 13.9% from the 4,545 appeals received 

in FY 2010. This represented the largest percentage increase in receipts in more than 12 years. At the same time, 

the number of available OFO Appellate Attorneys has decreased over the last decade, from a high of 49 in FY 2002 

to 33 in FY 2011. See generally Archives of EEOC Performance and Accountability Reports, Equal Employment Opportuni

Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/archives/annualreports/index.cfm.

31 By the end of FY 2011, the EEOC reduced the age of the open appellate inventory by 20.7%, resolved 76.3% of the 

oldest appeals, and reduced the number of 500+ day-old appeals by 30.1%. See Fiscal Year 2011 Performance and 

Accountability Report, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/2011par.cf

32 As an example, on a pilot basis, the EEOC has provided an opportunity through its Office of Federal Operations 

for a select number of those who receive an EEOC federal sector appellate decision to complete a Customer 

Satisfaction Survey. 

33 42 U.S.C. §2000e-4(h)(2) (2006).

34 42 U.S.C. §2000e-4(h) (2006).

35 See Fiscal Year 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/2011par.cfm.

36 Management Directive 715 (MD-715) is EEOC’s policy guidance to federal agencies for their use in establishing and 

maintaining effective equal employment opportunity and affirmative action programs. See Management Directive 

715, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Oct. 2003), http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715.cf

37 Budgets for each fiscal year are created well in advance of the year’s commencement. For example, the EEOC is in FY 

2012, but has just submitted a budget for FY 2013. Work for the FY 2014 budget begins in the spring of 2012.

38 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011).


131 M Street, N.E., 

Washington, D.C. 20507-0001

www.eeoc.gov

U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission