Opinion ID: 495403
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of OFCCP Procedures

Text: 58 CNA's broadest challenge is to the procedure employed by OFCCP in evaluating the competitive effect of releasing CNA's filings. CNA maintains that the agency's refusal to afford an evidentiary hearing violated its rights under the Due Process Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and OFCCP's own regulations. 208 CNA apparently believes that such a hearing is essential at the agency level to assure an adequate resolution of factual issues. We cannot agree. 59 We note initially, as did the District Court in its opinion, 209 the regulation governing contractors' objections to disclosure of affirmative action materials. 210 It requires a contractor to identify the reasons why such information is not disclosable 211 and, after an initial determination by OFCCP personnel, directs the agency to inform the contractor of its decision. 212 The regulation also provides for appeal of that ruling to the director of OFCCP, who must then render a final determination. 213 The regulation makes no mention of an evidentiary hearing, or indeed of any review procedures at all. We can hardly take issue with the District Court's finding that OFCCP did not transgress its own skeletal constraints. 60 Hardly more substantial is CNA's claim that the agency factfinding procedures ran afoul of Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act 214 and impinged on the full spectrum of review assured by the Due Process Clause. This court recently entertained a nearly identical complaint in NOW, 215 in which we found the OFCCP review sufficient to allay concerns about fairness to the submitters of information. 216 The holding in NOW is dispositive on this issue, and we dismiss without further discussion CNA's claim in that regard.