Opinion ID: 444039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the referral by the ofccp to the solicitor

Text: 7 Under the regulations effective at the time that Moon filed his claim with the Department of Labor, an employee could file a complaint with the Department alleging that a federal contractor had violated section 503. The Department was then to institute a prompt investigation. 41 C.F.R. Sec. 60-741.26(e) (1977). The regulations then provided as follows: 8 (1) If the complaint investigation shows no violation of the Act or regulations in this part, or if the agency or the Director decides not to initiate administrative or legal proceedings against the contractor, the complainant shall be so notified. Within 30 days, the complainant may request review by the Director of such a finding or decision. 9 (2) Where an investigation indicates that the contractor has not complied with the requirements of the Act or this part, efforts shall be made to secure compliance through conciliation and persuasion within a reasonable time .... 10 Id. Sec. 741.26(g) (emphasis added). If conciliation failed, the OFCCP was to proceed in accordance with the enforcement procedures contained in the regulations. Id. Sec. 741.28(a). Thus, the regulations contemplated that the Director of the OFCCP may decline to initiate administrative enforcement proceedings against a federal contractor even if the initial complaint investigation showed that the contractor had violated section 503. See id. Sec. 741.26(g)(1). Nothing in the regulations precluded the Director from seeking the counsel of the Solicitor before deciding whether to bring administrative action. Indeed, an administrative agency has inherent discretion to solicit the view of its legal staff, and to consider even the unsolicited views of its legal staff, particularly when it is precisely these attorneys who have responsibility for the enforcement proceedings. Presinzano v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 726 F.2d 105, 111 (3d Cir.1984). The regulations expressly authorized the Director of the OFCCP to delegate investigation responsibilities to other agencies. 41 C.F.R. Sec. 60-741.26(f) (1977). 11 Following the initial conclusion of the OFCCP that Roadway had violated section 503, Roadway, Moon, their attorneys, and representatives of the OFCCP held a conciliation meeting pursuant to the regulations. See id. Sec. 741.26(g)(2). This meeting was fruitless largely because of Moon's pending legal actions against Roadway. Moon contends that the regulations required the OFCCP to afford Roadway an opportunity for a hearing at this point as a precedent to further possible administrative action. See id. Sec. 60-741.26(g)(3). In the circumstances of this case, however, the Director of the OFCCP was required to give Roadway a formal hearing only if an apparent violation of the affirmative action clause by [Roadway], as shown by any investigation, [was] not resolved by informal means and a hearing [was] requested. Id. Sec. 60-741.29(a)(1). The Director, with the advice of the Solicitor, concluded that there was no apparent violation of the affirmative action clause. Therefore, no hearing was required. Nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act prohibits an agency from changing its mind, if that change aids it in its appointed task. American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 661 F.2d 340, 355 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). 12 Lastly, Moon argues that the Director of the OFCCP impermissibly abdicated his authority to enforce the Rehabilitation Act by acquiescing to the opinion of the Solicitor's Office after having already made an initial finding of discrimination. This argument follows from a misunderstanding of the regulatory scheme. The responsibilities of the OFCCP and the Solicitor are complementary--both are surrogates of the Secretary, responsible as delegatees for certain aspects of enforcement of section 503. See supra notes 2 & 5. The OFCCP does not abdicate its responsibility by requesting input from within this symbiosis. Further, following the recommendation of the Solicitor's Office, the National Office of the OFCCP reviewed Moon's case file to insure that the Solicitor had considered all the relevant facts. This additional review also included information submitted by Moon subsequent to the Solicitor's opinion. The OFCCP then informed Moon of its agreement with the conclusion of the Solicitor. This chronology convinces us that the OFCCP did not abdicate any of its responsibility under the Rehabilitation Act and the implementing regulations. The OFCCP has discretion either to seek or take the advice of its attorneys in determining the merits of a case, or to decline to proceed with a case after it [has] been determined to be unsuitable for further legal action. Presinzano, 726 F.2d at 112. 13