Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

Affirmative Action Plan 

for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and 

Retention of Persons with Disabilities 

To capture agencies’ affirmative action plan for persons with disabilities (PWD) and persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD), 

EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e)) and MD-715 require agencies to describe how their affirmative action plan will 

improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and employees with disabilities. 

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals 

EEOC regulations (29 CFR §1614.203(d)(7)) require agencies to establish specific numerical goals for increasing the participation 

of persons with disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities in the federal government 

1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD by grade level cluster in the 

permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Answer No 

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Answer No 

During FY2020, the Workforce Table, B4P, shows we have a total of total of 819 permanent employees of which 128 (16%) were 

employees with a disability. There are 275 permanent employees in grades GS-1 through 10 positions. Of the 275 employees 54 

(20%) stated they have a disability. Of the 544 permanent employees in grades GS-11 through SES, a total of 74 (14%) indicated 

they have a disability. 

*For GS employees, please use two clusters: GS-1 to GS-10 and GS-11 to SES, as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7). For all 

other pay plans, please use the approximate grade clusters that are above or below GS-11 Step 1 in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan region. 

2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD by grade level cluster in the 

permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) Answer No 

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Answer No 

During FY2020, the Workforce Table, B4P shows we have a total of 819 permanent employees of which 128 (16%) listed a 

disability. A total of 21 (3%) listed a targeted disability. Of the 21, a total of 13 employees with a targeted disability worked in GS-1 

through GS10 positions and a total of 8 employees with a targeted disability worked in GS-11 through SES positions. 

Grade Level Cluster(GS or Alternate Pay Total Reportable Disability Targeted Disability 

Planb) # # % # % 

Numarical Goal -- 12% 2% 

Grades GS-1 to GS-10 275 54 19.64 13 4.73 

Grades GS-11 to SES 544 74 13.60 8 1.47 

3. Describe how the agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers and/or recruiters. 

The agency communicated the numerical goals to the hiring officials through its Plan for Increasing and Maintaining the 

Employment of Individuals with Disabilities. This Plan was shared with the Executive Committee who disseminated it to their staff 

with hiring authority. 

Page 1 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

Section II: Model Disability Program 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(1), agencies must ensure sufficient staff, training and resources to recruit and hire persons with 

disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities, administer the reasonable accommodation program and special emphasis program, 

and oversee any other disability hiring and advancement program the agency has in place. 

A. PLAN TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT & COMPETENT STAFFING FOR THE DISABILITY 

PROGRAM 

1. Has the agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its disability program during the reporting period? 

If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to improve the staffing for the upcoming year. 

Answer Yes 

Human Resources has designated a HR Specialist to assist in improving the staffing of people with disabilities by contacting 

different organizations assisting people with disabilities to re-enter the workforce. We send all vacancy announcements to these 

organizations. We also have the Employees with Disabilities Advisory Council who assists in finding organizations that assist 

people with disabilities. 

2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the agency's disability employment program by the office, staff 

employment status, and responsible official. 

Disability Program Task 

# of FTE Staff By Employment Status Responsible Official 

(Name, Title, Office 

Full Time Part Time Collateral Duty Email)

Processing applications from PWD and PWTD 0 0 0 

N/A 

Architectural Barriers Act Compliance 0 0 1 Scott Rush 

Supvy Facility Operations 

Specialist 

scott.rush@rrb.gov 

Answering questions from the public about 

hiring authorities that take disability into 

account 

0 0 1 Melissa T Welch 

Lead HR Specialist/ 

Selective Placement 

Coordinator 

melissa.welch@rrb.gov 

Special Emphasis Program for PWD and 

PWTD 

0 0 1 Kathy Robinson 

EEO Specialist 

kathy.robinson@rrb.gov 

Section 508 Compliance 0 0 1 Robert LaBerry 

Supvy IT Specialist 

robert.laberry@rrb.gov 

Processing reasonable accommodation requests 

from applicants and employees 

0 0 1 Regina Block 

HR Specialist/Labor 

Relations 

regina.block@rrb.gov 

3. Has the agency provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry out their responsibilities during the 

reporting period? If “yes”, describe the training that disability program staff have received. If “no”, describe the training 

planned for the upcoming year. 

Answer Yes 

All managers and supervisors, and HR personnel, completed "A Roadmap to Success: Hiring, Retaining, and Including People with 

Disabilities" course in RRB University in March of FY2020. 

B. PLAN TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR THE DISABILITY PROGRAM 

Page 2 
 

Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

Has the agency provided sufficient funding and other resources to successfully implement the disability program during 

the reporting period? If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to ensure all aspects of the disability program have sufficient 

funding and other resources. 

Answer Yes 

We have a Selective Placement Coordinator in Human Resources who ensures we have a contact person at various disability 

organizations so we can advise them of all vacancy announcements being posted to usajobs.gov. This will ensure that people with 

disabilities are advised of our job openings. 

Section III: Program Deficiencies In The Disability Program 

Brief Description of Program D.1.c. Does the agency conduct exit interviews or surveys that include questions on how the agency could improve the 

Deficiency recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement of individuals with disabilities? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(1) 

(iii)(C)] 

Objective Meet with the Director of HR about re-establishing Exit Surveys. 

Target Date Oct 1, 2022 

Completion Date 

Planned Activities 

Target Date Completion Date Planned Activity 

Apr 1, 2021 Contacted the Director of HR to discuss the re-establishment of Exit 

Surveys and was informed that they (HR) has already begun the process 

to re-establish it. Will follow-up. 

Accomplishments 

Objective 

Fiscal Year Accomplishment 

Meet with the Director of HR about re-establishing exit surveys 

Target Date Oct 1, 22 

Completion Date 

Planned Activities Target Date Completion Date Planned Activity 

Accomplishments Fiscal Year Accomplishment 

Section IV: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(1)(i) and (ii), agencies must establish a plan to increase the recruitment and hiring of 

individuals with disabilities. The questions below are designed to identify outcomes of the agency’s recruitment program plan for 

PWD and PWTD 

A. PLAN TO IDENTIFY JOB APPLICATIONS WITH DISABILITIES 

1. Describe the programs and resources the agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities, including individuals with 

targeted disabilities. 

We do not identify job applicants with disabilities. All positions are filled based on the applicants knowledge, skills and abilities 

and not on their disability. 

2. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(a)(3), describe the agency’s use of hiring authorities that take disability into account 

(e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for positions in the permanent workforce 

The RRB is restricted in its use of special appointment authorities based on the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and the Railroad 

Unemployment and Insurance Act (RUIA). Both the RRA and the RUIA mandate that all positions within the RRB must be in the 

competitive service with the exception of only 3 positions (assistant to Board Members). The agency is therefore restricted in its use 

Page 3 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

of special appointment authorities and is limited to authorities that permit non-competitive hiring into competitive service positions 

3. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account (e.g., Schedule A), explain 

how the agency (1) determines if the individual is eligible for appointment under such authority; and, (2) forwards the 

individual's application to the relevant hiring officials with an explanation of how and when the individual may be 

appointed. 

Individuals do not apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account because we do not have authority to 

hire under these special authorities as stated above. 

4. Has the agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring authorities that take disability into account 

(e.g., Schedule A)? If “yes”, describe the type(s) of training and frequency. If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to provide 

this training. 

Answer N/A 

We do not have hiring authority under Schedule A and therefore, no training is provided on Schedule A. 

B. PLAN TO ESTABLISH CONTACTS WITH DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATIONS 

Describe the agency’s efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist PWD, including PWTD, in 

securing and maintaining employment. 

During FY2020, OEO worked with HR to establish and maintain contacts with eleven organizations that assist PWD and PWTD. 

These organizations include the Chicago Lighthouse, Aspire Non-Profit, Trinity Services, Inc., Search, Inc., Goodwill Chicago, 

America Works, the City of Chicago, the Department of Human Services, Independent Living and Transition Advocate Progress 

Center, and Southwest American Job Center. We secured a contact person at each organization with their email addresse and 

telephone number. We send our vacancy notices to them and in turn they disburse the information to clients being serviced by their 

organization. 

C. PROGRESSION TOWARDS GOALS (RECRUITMENT AND HIRING) 

1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among 

the new hires in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. 

a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) Answer No 

b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Answer No 

The RRB hired a total of 60 new employees during FY2020. A total of six (6) new employees (10%) listed a disability and 15 or 

(25%) did not want to identify their disability. I believe these individuals have a disability and they should be included. So together, 

that accounts for twenty-one (21) employees or 35% of our new hires. Of the 60 new employees, two (2) or 3% identified their 

disability as a targeted disability. 

New Hires Total 

(#) 

Reportable Disability Targeted Disability 

Permanent 

Workforce 

(%) 

Temporary 

Workforce 

(%) 

Permanent 

Workforce 

(%) 

Temporary 

Workforce 

(%) 

% of Total 

Applicants 

966 5.69 0.00 3.52 0.00 

% of Qualified 

Applicants 

830 5.30 0.00 3.25 0.00 

Page 4 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

% of New Hires 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the new hires for any 

of the mission- critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. Select “n/a” if the applicant data 

is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) Answer No 

b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Answer No 

The RRB has two mission critical occupations (MCO): 2210 and 0993. Only two (2) individuals were hired in the 2210 MCO. We 

only know this from our accession report. We believe they are not shown on the AFD Table A7/B7 because they omitted their 

demographics and did not provide their race, sex nor disability status on usajobs.gov. A total of eighteen (18) individuals were hired 

in the 0993 MCO. One (1) new employee (5%) said their disability was not listed (code 06) however,four (4) new employees (22%) 

did not want to disclose their disability (01). Together, that represents 27%. Since code 01 and code 06 does not tell us the nature of 

the disability, we can not make a well informed decision as to whether any new hire had a targeted disability. 

New Hires to Reportable Disability Targetable Disability 

Mission-Critical 

Occupations 

Total 

(#) 

Qualified 

Applicants 

(%) 

New Hires 

(%) 

Qualified Applicants 

(%) 

New Hires 

(%) 

Numerical Goal -- 12% 2% 

0993RAILROAD 

RETIREMENT 

CLAIMS 

EXAMINING 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

2210INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

MANAGEMENT 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

3. Using the relevant applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the qualified internal 

applicants for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. Select “n/a” if 

the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) Answer No 

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Answer No 

A total of only twenty-six (26) internal applicants applied for promotion in the MCO 0993. A total of two (2) or 8% of the 

employees identified a disability and two (2) or 8% identified a targeted disability. A total of seven (7) or 27% applicants did not 

identify a disability and seventeen (17) or 65% stated they did not have a disability. There were eight (8) or 13% applicants selected 

and one applicant did not identify their disability, code (01). This may or may not be a trigger, but will continue to monitor the 

statistics. There were no internal applicants for MCO 2210. 

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among employees promoted 

to any of the mission- critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. Select “n/a” if the 

applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Answer No 

b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Answer No 

For MCO 0993, nineteen (19) employees were promoted into 0993 positions. Of the nineteen (19) two (2) employees or 11% of the 

employees listed a disability and they were both targeted disabilities. There were seven (7) employees selected for promotion and 

Page 5 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

they all cited having no disability. This may or may not trigger a barrier analysis because the selection is so small. We will continue 

to monitor the statistics. We also want to state that one of the employees with a disability withdrew her application. There were no 

promotions for MCO 2210. 

Section V: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with 

Disabilities 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(1)(iii), agencies are required to provide sufficient advancement opportunities for employees 

with disabilities. Such activities might include specialized training and mentoring programs, career development opportunities, 

awards programs, promotions, and similar programs that address advancement. In this section, agencies should identify, and provide 

data on programs designed to ensure advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities. 

A. ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM PLAN 

Describe the agency’s plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities for advancement. 

All employees have advancement opportunities based on their knowledge, skills and abilities. Reasonable accommodations are 

provided to those in need but advancement is based on the individuals skills and abilities and not because they have a disability. 

B. CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITES 

1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its employees. 

All employees can complete an Individual Development Plan (IPD) to assist them in moving ahead in the agency. They share their 

plan with their supervisor and they set short term and long term goals as to what they would like to achieve at the RRB. We have 

online courses that they can take to help them with their goals. By writing it down and sharing it with supervisor, they are reminded 

of their goals and their supervisors are tasks with encouraging and assisting them reach their goals and/or positions they aspire to. 

2. In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that require competition and/or 

supervisory recommendation/ approval to participate. 

Career Development 

Opportunities 

Total Participants PWD PWTD 

Applicants (#) Selectees (#)

 Applicants 

(%) Selectees (%)

 Applicants 

(%) Selectees (%) 

Fellowship Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Career Development 

Programs 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mentoring Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Coaching Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Internship Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Detail Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3. Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development programs? (The 

appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your 

plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. Applicants (PWD) Answer N/A 

b. Selections (PWD) Answer N/A 

Page 6 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

The RRB did not offer any other career development programs other than the IDP in 2020. As stated above, all employees are

encouraged to participate in the IDP. There were 60 employees who participated in the IDP and eight (8) or 13% reported having a 

disability. There were no employees who identified themselves as having a targeted disability. Out of the sixty (60) participants in 

the program seven (7) or 12% did not identify a disability, (code 01). And as always, all managers and supervisors took required 

supervisory/management training. 

4. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development programs? (The 

appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your 

plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. Applicants (PWTD) Answer N/A 

b. Selections (PWTD) Answer N/A 

The RRB did not offer career development programs in FY2020. 

C. AWARDS 

1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD and/or PWTD for any level of 

the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If “yes”, please describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWD) Answer No 

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Answer No 

During FY2020 the RRB issued fifty-seven (57) time-off awards and one hundred and thirty-eight (138) non performance based 

awards (includes suggestion awards, group awards, cash award not based on performance) totaling 196 awards. A total of twentysix (26) employees (13%) listed a disability and three (3) or 2% listed a targeted disability. Again, I believe we should include the 

employees who did not identify their disability. A total of eleven (11) employees or 6% did not identify their disability. Added with 

the 26 who listed their disability, we total 19%. 

Time-Off Awards Total (#) 

Reportable 

Disability % 

Without Reportable 

Disability % 

Targeted Disability 

% 

Without Targeted 

Disability % 

Time-Off Awards 1 - 10 hours: 

Awards Given 

50 7.75 5.65 9.09 7.48 

Time-Off Awards 1 - 10 Hours: 

Total Hours 

356 58.91 39.08 72.73 56.07 

Time-Off Awards 1 - 10 Hours: 

Average Hours 

7 5.43 0.92 36.36 -0.93 

Time-Off Awards 11 - 20 hours: 

Awards Given 

2 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 11 - 20 Hours: 

Total Hours 

32 0.00 4.89 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 11 - 20 Hours: 

Average Hours 

16 0.00 2.44 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 21 - 30 hours: 

Awards Given 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 21 - 30 Hours: 

Total Hours 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 21 - 30 Hours: 

Average Hours 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 31 - 40 hours: 

Awards Given 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 31 - 40 Hours: 

Total Hours 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Page 7 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

Time-Off Awards Total (#) 

Reportable 

Disability % 

Without Reportable 

Disability % 

Targeted Disability 

% 

Without Targeted 

Disability % 

Time-Off Awards 31 - 40 Hours: 

Average Hours 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 41 or more 

Hours: Awards Given 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 41 or more 

Hours: Total Hours 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Time-Off Awards 41 or more 

Hours: Average Hours 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Cash Awards Total (#) 

Reportable 

Disability % 

Without Reportable 

Disability % 

Targeted Disability 

% 

Without Targeted 

Disability % 

Cash Awards: $501 - $999: Awards 

Given 

87 12.40 10.08 31.82 8.41 

Cash Awards: $501 - $999: Total 

Amount 

66798 9728.68 7729.16 27559.09 6062.62 

Cash Awards: $501 - $999: 

Average Amount 

767 607.75 117.10 3936.36 -76.64 

Cash Awards: $1000 - $1999: 

Awards Given 

262 27.91 33.74 31.82 27.10 

Cash Awards: $1000 - $1999: Total 

Amount 

379472 41372.09 48873.44 48963.64 39811.21 

Cash Awards: $1000 - $1999: 

Average Amount 

1448 1148.84 221.07 6990.91 -52.34 

Cash Awards: $2000 - $2999: 

Awards Given 

118 10.08 15.42 4.55 11.21 

Cash Awards: $2000 - $2999: Total 

Amount 

285348 23546.51 37358.63 11009.09 26124.30 

Cash Awards: $2000 - $2999: 

Average Amount 

2418 1810.85 369.77 11009.09 -80.37 

Cash Awards: $3000 - $3999: 

Awards Given 

88 5.43 12.06 0.00 6.54 

Cash Awards: $3000 - $3999: Total 

Amount 

295493 18460.47 40434.96 0.00 22256.07 

Cash Awards: $3000 - $3999: 

Average Amount 

3357 2637.21 511.76 0.00 3179.44 

Cash Awards: $4000 - $4999: 

Awards Given 

46 6.20 5.34 9.09 5.61 

Cash Awards: $4000 - $4999: Total 

Amount 

215080 29553.49 24937.40 45409.09 26293.46 

Cash Awards: $4000 - $4999: 

Average Amount 

4675 3693.80 712.37 22704.55 -214.95 

Cash Awards: $5000 or more: 

Awards Given 

5 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 

Cash Awards: $5000 or more: Total 

Amount 

65982 0.00 10073.59 0.00 0.00 

Cash Awards: $5000 or more: 

Average Amount 

13196 0.00 2014.66 0.00 0.00 

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD and/or PWTD for quality step 

increases or performance- based pay increases? If “yes”, please describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Pay Increases (PWD) Answer No 

b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Answer No 

During FY2020, a total of one hundred and forty-eight (148) employees received a quality step increase and five hundred and 

Page 8 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

fourteen (514) employees received a performance based incentive award for a total of six hundred and sixty-two (662) employees. 

A total of ninety-five (95) or 14% of these employees listed a disability. Of the 662 employees, seven-teen (17) or3% listed a 

targeted disability. 

Other Awards Total (#) 

Reportable 

Disability % 

Without Reportable 

Disability % 

Targeted Disability 

% 

Without Targeted 

Disability % 

Total Performance Based Pay 

Increases Awarded 

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

3. If the agency has other types of employee recognition programs, are PWD and/or PWTD recognized disproportionately 

less than employees without disabilities? (The appropriate benchmark is the inclusion rate.) If “yes”, describe the 

employee recognition program and relevant data in the text box. 

a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) Answer N/A 

b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Answer N/A 

The RRB does not have any additional recognition programs other than those listed above. 

D. PROMOTIONS 

1. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions to 

the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and 

the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your 

plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. SES 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer N/A 

b. Grade GS-15 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer No 

c. Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer No 

d. Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer No 

During FY2020, no employee was promoted into a SES position. A total of two (2) employees applied and qualified for a GS-15 

position. Both reported no disability. There were twenty-nine (29) employees who applied for a GS-14 position and ten (10) were 

qualified. Of those who qualified, four (4) applicants reported no disability; and six (6) employees (24%) did not identify their 

disability (code 06). There were four (4) applicants who applied for the GS-13 positions, and all four reported having no disability. 

All four applicants qualified and one was selected. 

2. 

Page 9 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions 

to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants 

and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If 

“yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and 

describe your plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. SES 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer N/A 

b. Grade GS-15 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer N/A 

c. Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer N/A 

d. Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer N/A 

During FY2020 there was one internal applicant who applied for a GS-14 position who reported having a targeted disability (code 

40). No other applicants reported a targeted disability. Many applicants did not want to identify their disability so we do not know if 

they had a targeted disability or not. The data does not trigger a barrier analysis. 

3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the new hires 

to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to 

provide the data in the text box. 

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Answer N/A 

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Answer No 

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Answer No 

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Answer No 

During FY2020, the RRB did not hire any new employees into a SES position. The RRB hired two (2) individuals for a GS-15 

position (external posting). Neither one stated a disability. The RRB hired one (1) individuals for a GS-14 position (external 

posting). The selectee reported no disability. The RRB hired one (1) individual for a GS-13 position (external posting). The selectee 

did not want to identify his disability. We do not believe the data is large enough to trigger a barrier analysis. 

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the new 

hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe 

the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to 

provide the data in the text box. 

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Answer N/A 

Page 10 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) 

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) 

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) 

Answer 

Answer 

Answer 

No 

No 

No 

During FY2020, the RRB did not hire any new employees into an SES position. The RRB hired two (2) individuals for a GS-15 

position. Neither stated a disability. Therefore, there were no targeted disabilities The RRB hired one (1) individuals for a GS-14 

position. The applicant flow data did not show any GS-14 data on new hires. The only data we had was the RRB accessions report 

where one new employee was hired. The selectee reported no disability. Therefore, there no targeted disabilities. And, the RRB 

hired one (1) individual for a GS-13 position. The selectee did not want to identify his disability. So we do not know if he had a 

targeted disability. Since the RRB does not have hiring authority under Schedule A and the new hires are small in number, we do 

not see a trigger to support a barrier analysis. 

5. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions to 

supervisory 

positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified 

applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not 

available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. Executives 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer N/A 

b. Managers 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer No 

c. Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer No 

During FY2020, no employee applied or was selected for a SES or Executive position. A total of thirty-seven (37) applied and 

twenty (20) qualified for a supervisory/management position at the GS-13 through GS-15 level. A total of three (3) applicants had a 

disability but only 1 applicant with a disability was qualified for the position. That disability was not listed (code 06). The Applicant 

Flow Data program could not separate the supervisors from the managers, therefore all management positions were included 

together under supervisors on the relevant A19 and B19 tables. 

6. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions 

to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and 

the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data 

is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. Executives 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer No 

b. Managers 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer No 

Page 11 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) 

c. Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) 

Answer 

Answer 

Answer 

No 

No 

No 

During FY2020, no employee applied or was selected for an SES or Executive position. A total of thirty-seven (37) applied and 

twenty (20) qualified for a supervisory/management position at the GS-13 through GS-15 level. A total of three (3) applicants had a 

disability and two had a target disability. Both applicants with a targeted disability were rated not qualified. Therefore, no applicant 

with a targeted disability could be selected. Please note that the Applicant Flow Data system could not separate the supervisors from 

the managers, therefore all management positions were included together under supervisors. 

7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the selectees 

for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is 

not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. New Hires for Executives (PWD) Answer No 

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Answer No 

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Answer No 

During FY2020, one (1) external applicant was hired to fill a supervisory position. This applicant stated no disability. Most 

applicants either reported having no disability or did not identify the disability. These new hires are so small in number that we do 

not see this as a trigger. 

8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the 

selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the 

applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box. 

a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) Answer No 

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Answer No 

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Answer No 

Of all the applicants who applied for the supervisory position, no one listed a targeted disability. Since the RRB cannot use 

Schedule A and our new hire numbers are so small, we do not see this as a trigger. 

Section VI: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities 

To be model employer for persons with disabilities, agencies must have policies and programs in place to retain employees with 

disabilities. In this section, agencies should: (1) analyze workforce separation data to identify barriers retaining employees with 

disabilities; (2) describe efforts to ensure accessibility of technology and facilities; and (3) provide information on the reasonable 

accommodation program and workplace assistance services. 

A. VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATIONS 

1. In this reporting period, did the agency convert all eligible Schedule A employees with a disability into the competitive 

service after two years of satisfactory service (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)(6)(i))? If “no”, please explain why the agency did 

not convert all eligible Schedule A employees. 

Answer N/A 

Page 12 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

The agency is restricted from using Schedule A. 

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among voluntary and involuntary separations 

exceed that of persons without disabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger below. 

a.Voluntary Separations (PWD) Answer No 

b.Involuntary Separations (PWD) Answer No 

During F2020, a total of eighty-nine (89) employees separated from the RRB. Two employees (2) were involuntary separated from 

the RRB. One employee (1) had no disability (code 05) and the other employee did not wish to identify their disability (code 01). 

No trigger with only 2 employees to analyze whether trigger exists. A total of eighty-seven (87) employees voluntarily separated 

from the RRB. Sixty-four employees (64) stated they had no disability. Three (3) employees did not wish to identify their disability 

(code 01), three employees (3) stated that their disability was not listed on the form and seventeen employees (17) or 20% stated 

they had a disability. 

Seperations Total # Reportable Disabilities % 

Without Reportable 

Disabilities % 

Permanent Workforce: Reduction in Force 0 0.00 0.00 

Permanent Workforce: Removal 0 0.00 0.00 

Permanent Workforce: Resignation 0 0.00 0.00 

Permanent Workforce: Retirement 0 0.00 0.00 

Permanent Workforce: Other Separations 1 0.00 0.14 

Permanent Workforce: Total Separations 1 0.00 0.14 

3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among voluntary and involuntary separations 

exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger below. 

a.Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Answer No 

b.Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Answer No 

During FY2020, a total of eighty-nine employees separated from the RRB. Two employees (2) were involuntary separated from the 

RRB. One employee (1) had no disability (code 05) and the other employee did not wish to identify their disability (code 01). No 

trigger with only 2 employees to analyze whether trigger exists. Although one listed a disability but they did not want to say what it 

was, the sample is to small. A total of eighty-seven (87) employees voluntarily separated from the RRB. Sixty-four employees (64) 

stated they had no disability. Three (3) employees did not wish to identify their disability (code 01), three, employees (3) stated that 

their disability was not listed on the form and seventeen employees (17) stated they had a disability . Of the seventeen, a total of 

four (4) stated a targeted disability (5%). 

Seperations Total # Targeted Disabilities % 

Without Targeted Disabilities 

% 

Permanent Workforce: Reduction in Force 0 0.00 0.00 

Permanent Workforce: Removal 0 0.00 0.00 

Permanent Workforce: Resignation 0 0.00 0.00 

Permanent Workforce: Retirement 0 0.00 0.00 

Permanent Workforce: Other Separations 1 0.00 0.12 

Permanent Workforce: Total Separations 1 0.00 0.12 

4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of PWD and/or PWTD, please explain why they left the agency using exit 

interview results and other data sources. 

No trigger existed. 

Page 13 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

B. ACCESSIBILITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND FACILITIES 

Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform applicants and employees of their rights under Section 

508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(b), concerning the accessibility of agency technology, and the Architectural 

Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151-4157), concerning the accessibility of agency facilities. In addition, agencies are required to 

inform individuals where to file complaints if other agencies are responsible for a violation. 

1. Please provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining employees’ and applicants’ 

rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a description of how to file a complaint. 

https://www.rrb.gov/Resources/OfficeOfEqualOpportunity/Nondiscrimination. 

2. Please provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining employees’ and applicants’ 

rights under the 

Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of how to file a complaint. 

https://www.rrb.gov/Policy#aba 

3. Describe any programs, policies, or practices that the agency has undertaken, or plans on undertaking over the next fiscal 

year, designed to improve accessibility of agency facilities and/or technology. 

The IT department is still in the process of revising/changing some of the RRB systems so that they are compatible with each other 

and pull data from each other so claims are paid quicker and more efficiently. These program updates will take a couple of years to 

complete. 

C. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), agencies must adopt, post on their public website, and make available to all job applicants 

and employees, reasonable accommodation procedures. 

1. Please provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable accommodations during the reporting 

period. (Please do not include previously approved requests with repetitive accommodations, such as interpreting services.) 

The average time frame for processing initial requests was 23.5 work days. The lowest time was 8 workdays for an ergonomic desk 

and the longest time as 67 workdays for a sit/stand workdesk. All others were 30 work days or less. 

2. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the agency’s reasonable accommodation 

program. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests, timely providing approved 

accommodations, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and monitoring accommodation requests for trends. 

The reasonable accommodation policy and procedure is very effective. Employees are able to come to the Office of Equal 

Opportunity (OEO) if they are not satisfied with their accommodation or they are denied an accommodation and wish to file a 

complaint or just talk about it. This policy is on OEO and HR internal website for all employees to read. OEO provides an annual 

new supervisors training. When revisions are made to the policy, a training PowerPoint is downloaded to our training module (RRB 

University) and we ensure all employees complete it by tracking their progress. The RRB had eleven (11) requests for a reasonable 

accommodations and four of the requests involved a sit/stand desk. 

D. PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 

WORKPLACE 

Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative action, are required to provide personal 

assistance services (PAS) to employees who need them because of a targeted disability, unless doing so would impose an undue 

hardship on the agency. 

Page 14 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the PAS requirement. Some examples of 

an effective program include timely processing requests for PAS, timely providing approved services, conducting training 

for managers and supervisors, and monitoring PAS requests for trends. 

We included the PAS procedure in the Reasonable Accommodation Policy. During FY2020, no one requested PAS so no data is 

available on this. 

Section VII: EEO Complaint and Findings Data 

A. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING HARASSMENT 

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging harassment, as compared 

to the governmentwide average? 

Answer No 

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on disability status result in a finding of 

discrimination or a settlement agreement? 

Answer No 

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability status during the last 

fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the agency. 

The agency had no findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on a disability during FY2020. 

B. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging failure to provide a 

reasonable 

accommodation, as compared to the government-wide average? 

Answer No 

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation result in a finding of 

discrimination or a settlement agreement? 

Answer No 

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation 

during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the agency. 

The RRB had no findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation during FY2020. 

Section VIII: Identification and Removal of Barriers 

Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger suggests that a policy, procedure, or practice 

may be impeding the employment opportunities of a protected EEO group. 

1. Has the agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices) that affect employment opportunities for 

PWD and/or PWTD? 

Answer No 

2. Has the agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD and/or PWTD? 

Answer N/A 

Page 15 
Railroad Retirement Board FY 2020 

3. Identify each trigger and plan to remove the barrier(s), including the identified barrier(s), objective(s), responsible 

official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, accomplishments 

4. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing any of the planned activities. 

N/A 

N/A 

5. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those activities toward eliminating the 

barrier(s). 

6. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how the agency intends to improve 

the plan for the next fiscal year. 

N/A 

Page 16