Opinion ID: 6335104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fourth Circuit’s EDR Plan

Text: At the heart of this case is the EDR Plan that was adopted by the Fourth Circuit for addressing employee complaints of sexual discrimination. We shall proceed to outline how the EDR Plan was adopted and, in turn, how the EDR Plan was designed to work. In January 1995, Congress enacted the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. The CAA made applicable “to the legislative branch of the Federal Government” a number of federal employment statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2 U.S.C. § 1302(a). The CAA also included a section titled “Judicial Branch Coverage Study” that directed “[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States” to “prepare a report for submission by the Chief Justice of the United States to the Congress on the application to the judicial branch of the Federal Government” of various federal employment statutes, i.e., the same statutes that the CAA made applicable to the legislative branch of the federal government. 3 2 U.S.C. § 1434. In December 1996, the Judicial Conference submitted a report to Congress in response to the CAA. The report essentially asserted that it was unnecessary for federal employment statutes to be applied to the federal judiciary because the federal judiciary already provided its employees with protections similar to those enumerated in the various 3 “In enacting the CAA, Congress initially considered extending the statute’s coverage to employees of the judicial branch but, mindful of the importance of judicial autonomy, ultimately decided against such action.” Dotson v. Griesa, 398 F.3d 156, 173 (2d Cir. 2005). 8 federal employment statutes. The report did indicate, however, that the federal judiciary would develop and implement a new model employment dispute resolution plan. In early 1997, the Judicial Resources Committee drafted a new model employment dispute resolution plan and circulated the plan for comments. After receiving comments and revising the plan in response to those comments, the Judicial Resources Committee recommended, and the Judicial Conference approved, a model employment dispute resolution plan (Model EDR Plan). Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, at 28 (Mar. 11, 1997) (saved as ECF opinion attachment). The Fourth Circuit adopted its own EDR Plan, based on the Model EDR Plan. The Fourth Circuit’s EDR Plan has been amended several times since its original adoption. At issue in this case is the 2013 version of that plan (2013 EDR Plan). The 2013 EDR Plan expressly applied to the “unit executive and staff” of the “Federal Public Defenders within the Fourth Circuit.” JA, Vol. II at 661. Chapter II, § 1 of the 2013 EDR Plan stated that [d]iscrimination against employees based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), national origin, age (at least 40 years of age at the time of the alleged discrimination), and disability is prohibited. Harassment against an employee based on any of these protected categories or retaliation for engaging in any protected activity is prohibited. All of the above constitute “wrongful conduct.” Id. at 662. Chapter II, § 3.A of the 2013 EDR Plan stated, in pertinent part: The . . . Federal Public Defenders . . . should make reasonable efforts to see that the skills, abilities, and potential of each employee are identified and 9 developed and that all employees are given equal opportunities for promotion by being offered, when the work of the Court permits and within the limits of available resources, cross-training, reassignments, job restructuring, special assignments, and outside job-related training. Id. Section 3.B of Chapter II in turn directs supervisors to “apply equal employment opportunity practices and policies in their work units.” Id. Chapter X of the 2013 EDR Plan sets forth detailed “DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES” that are to govern when “[a]n employee . . . claims a denial of the rights granted under Chapters II through VII of th[e] Plan.” Id. at 664. “Generally, the procedural process consists of” three components: (1) “[c]ounseling and mediation”; (2) a “[h]earing before the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (or a designated hearing officer)”; and (3) “[r]eview of the hearing decision under procedures established by the Judicial Council of the Circuit.” Id. Chapter X encourages employees to attempt to informally resolve their concerns before invoking the procedures of Chapter X. More specifically, § 2 of Chapter X provides as follows: “Before invoking a request for counseling, an employee (to the extent feasible) is encouraged to bring his or her concerns to his or her supervisor or unit executive, unless the supervisor or unit executive is the alleged violator.” Id. at 664–65. Section 8 of Chapter X requires “[a]n employee who believes that his or her rights under Chapters II through VIII of th[e] Plan have been violated [to] first request counseling.” Id. at 666. Such requests “must be made within 30 days of the alleged violation or within 30 days of the time the employee becomes aware of the alleged violation.” Id. Employee requests for counseling are submitted to the Circuit Executive, 10 who serves as the Circuit’s Employment Dispute Resolution Coordinator (EDR Coordinator). Id. This initial counseling requirement has four purposes: (1) “to discuss the employee’s concerns and elicit information regarding the matter which the employee believes constitutes a violation”; (2) “to advise the employee of his or her rights and responsibilities and the procedures of the Court applicable to the employment dispute resolution process”; (3) “to evaluate the matter”; and (4) “to assist the employee in achieving an early resolution of the matter, if possible.” Id. (§ 8.C.2). At the end of the 30-day counseling period, the EDR Coordinator is required to notify the employee in writing “of the end of the counseling period” and “inform the employee of the right and obligation, should the employee choose to pursue his or her claim, to file with the EDR Coordinator a request for mediation in accordance with § 9 of . . . Chapter” X. Id. at 667. The 30-day counseling period can be extended for an additional 30 days by mutual agreement of the employee and the counselor. Id. An employee request for mediation must be filed “[w]ithin 15 days after receipt by the employee of the notice of the conclusion of the counseling period.” Id. (§ 9.A). An employee’s “[f]ailure to pursue mediation will preclude further processing of the employee’s claim under any other provisions” of Chapter X. Id. “Any person with the skills to assist in resolving disputes, except the Court’s EDR Coordinator, may serve as a mediator under this Plan.” Id. (§ 9.B.1). The purpose of the mediation is to afford the mediator the opportunity to “consult separately and/or jointly with the employee and his or her representative, if any, and the employing office to discuss alternatives for resolving a 11 dispute, including any and all possibilities of reaching a voluntary, mutually satisfactory mediation.” Id. (§ 9.B.3). If “the parties have not resolved the matter” by “the end of the [30-day] mediation period,” the EDR Coordinator is required to “provide the employee, the employee’s representative, if any, and the employing office with written notice that the mediation period has concluded” and “inform the employee of his or her right to file a complaint under § 10 of” Chapter X. Id. (§ 9.D). “Not later than 15 days after receiving written notice of the end of the mediation period, an employee may file a complaint with the EDR Coordinator, who will transmit the complaint to the Chief Judge and to the respondent.” Id. (§ 10.A). Provided that the complaint is on the court-approved form, names the employing office as the respondent, and does not name any individuals as respondents, the presiding judicial officer (either the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit or his/her designee) “shall hold a hearing on the merits of the complaint unless he or she determines that no material factual dispute exists.” Id. at 668 (§ 10.B.1). “[T]he hearing shall be commenced no later than 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” Id. (§ 10.B.2.a). No later than 60 days after the hearing, the presiding judicial officer must issue a final written decision. Id. (§§ 10.B.2.f and 10.B.2.g). In making that decision, the presiding judicial officer determines whether “the complainant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that a substantive right protected by th[e] Plan has been violated.” Id. (§ 10.B.2.f). If the presiding judicial officer finds that the complainant has established one or more violations, “remedies may be provided in accordance with § 12 of” Chapter X. Id. 12 Available remedies include “placement of an employee in a position previously denied,” “placement in a comparable alternative position,” “reinstatement to a position from which previously removed,” “prospective promotion to a position,” “priority consideration for a future promotion or position,” “back pay and associated benefits,” “records modification and/or expungement,” “‘equitable’ relief, such as temporary stays of adverse actions,” “granting of family and medical leave,” and “accommodation of disabilities through the purchase of specialized equipment or the restructuring of duties and work hours, or other appropriate means.” Id. at 669–70 (§ 12.B).