Legal Overview of P.L. 107-174, the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002
CRS Report for Congress
Legal Overview of P.L. 107-174, the
Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation
Act of 2002
Charles V. Dale
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Summary
In the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act,
(No FEAR Act), P.L. 107-174, Congress found that federal agencies lacked
accountability for enforcement of federal anti-discrimination and whistleblower statutes
since any monetary judgment against an agency was paid from the Judgment Fund of
the U.S. Department of Justice, rather than the agency’s own operating budget. The Act
addresses the problem by requiring agencies to reimburse the Treasury for any judgment
or settlement of federal employee discrimination or whistleblower reprisal claims. In
addition, individual agencies and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must
post annual statistics on their websites, setting forth the numbers of complaints filed,
pending, and resolved; the amount paid out on such claims; the number of employees
disciplined for discrimination, retaliation, or harassment; and an examination of any
trends in those statistics, including a causal analysis, the practical knowledge obtained
in the process, and any planned or completed improvements made to the complaint
resolution procedures of each agency.
President Bush signed P.L. 107-174, popularly known as the “No FEAR Act,” into
law on May 15, 2002. The new law, which applies only to the federal sector, grew out
of hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, focusing on “chronic problems of
discrimination and retaliation” against federal employees and a lack of employing agency
accountability. Of particular concern were “several recent class action suits based on
discrimination brought against federal agencies” and a substantial jury award in favor of
a senior social scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency who had been retaliated1
against “for disagreeing with that agency on a matter of science.” As a response, the Act
seeks to make federal agencies more accountable for prohibited personnel practices. First,
any future settlements or judgments in federal employee discrimination and whistle-
blower actions must be paid directly from the budget of the employing agency. Formerly,
1 See Findings, P.L. 107-174, § 101.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
such costs were disbursed from the Judgment Fund, a permanent and indefinite
appropriations to pay settlements and judgments against the federal government.2
Congress created the Fund to avoid the necessity for specific appropriations to cover
government legal costs and, in theory, to allow for prompter payment. According to U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) testimony, however, the Judgment Fund
discourages accountability by being a disincentive to agencies to resolve matters
promptly in the administrative processes; by not pursuing resolution, an agency could
shift the cost of resolution from its budget to the Judgment Fund and escape scrutiny3
that would accompany a request for a supplemental appropriation.
In addition, the legislation requires each agency to file with Congress an annual report
detailing the number of discrimination or whistle-blower cases filed with it, how the cases
were resolved, the amount of any settlements, and the number of agency employee
disciplines for discrimination or harassment. The Act’s major provisions are considered
in greater detail below.
Payment of settlements and judgments. After October 1, 2003, agencies are
required to reimburse the Judgment Fund out of their annual appropriations for the
payment of judgments, awards, and settlements attributable to employee claims of
discrimination, reprisals for whistleblowing, or for the exercise of appeal rights.4 As a
background matter, federal law provides executive branch employees with three levels
of review for such complaints of discrimination or reprisal. The first resides in the
employing agency, after which administrative review may be had before outside
investigative and adjudicatory bodies. Finally, the matter may be appealed to the federal
courts.
In cases alleging discrimination based on race, color, religion sex, national origin,
age, or disability, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hears
complaints filed by employees with their agencies and reviews agency decisions on those
complaints.5 In addition to applicable civil rights laws, the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978 (CSRA) establishes merit system principles for fair and nondiscriminatory treatment
of the federal workforce and defines prohibited personnel practices, including reprisal for
whistleblowing.6 In the case of an employee who alleges that discrimination or retaliation
was the motive for serious personnel actions, such as dismissal or suspension for more
than 14 days, the employee can request a hearing before the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB). MSPB’s decision on such cases may then be reviewed by EEOC.7
For federal employees who believe that they have been subject to whistleblower
reprisal, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) will investigate their complaints and seek
2 31 U.S.C. § 1304.
3 S. Rep. No. 703-143, p. 3 ( 2002).
4 P.L. 107-174, § 201.
5 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401 et seq. (2003).
6 5 U.S.C. § 2302.
7 29 C.F.R. § 1614.303 (2003).
corrective action where appropriate.8 If the agency fails to take necessary corrective
action, OSC or the employee may appeal the case to MSPB for resolution. Alternatively,
an employee may file a reprisal complaint directly with MSPB, if the personnel action
taken against the person is itself appealable to MSPB.9 Remedies available under the
1994 Whistleblower Protection Act amendments include placing the individual in the
position he would have been in had the prohibited personnel practice not occurred, as well
as back pay and related benefits and any other “reasonable and foreseeable consequential
damages.”10 In addition, under certain environmental laws and the Energy Reorganization
Act, employees may ask the Department of Labor and Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to investigate their complaints. If dissatisfied with the outcome of a whistleblower
reprisal complaint, the employee can file an appeal for review by a federal appeals court.
An employee may seek de novo review in federal district court of any adverse decision
by the EEOC or MSPB on an employee’s discrimination complaint.11
As noted, federal agencies did not previously shoulder all payments made to
complainants and their lawyers in discrimination or whistleblowing cases. Administrative
settlements reached via internal agency procedures were generally paid out of current
operating funds. But any monetary relief awarded after commencement of judicial
proceedings was usually drawn from the government-wide Judgment Fund. In addition
to attorney fees and expenses, payments to complainants may include backpay,
compensatory damages, and lump sum payments. In fiscal year 2000, agencies made
payments totaling about $26 million for discrimination complaint settlements and
judgments. That same year, agencies were relieved of paying almost $43 million due to
the existence of the Judgment Fund.12 Under the “No FEAR Act,” agencies must
reimburse the fund for the amount of any claim, final judgment, award, or compromise
settlement paid to any current or former federal employee or applicant in connection with
specified anti-discrimination or whistleblower protection complaints. Because some
judgments might deprive agencies of needed funds, however, the law allows for a
8 5 U.S.C. § 1221.
9 The Whistleblower Protection Act creates a right of prompt investigation conducted by OSC
and a hearing before the MSPB. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1201- 1222. The Act’s 1994 Amendments provide
that MSPB shall order corrective action if an employee can show that whistleblowing activities
were a “contributing factor” in personnel actions against her. Id. at § 1221(e)(1). The MSPB can
order corrective action unless “the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that
it would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of such disclosure.” Id. at § 1221
(e)(2).
10 5 U.S.C. § 1221 (g)(2).
11 Employees who belong to collective bargaining units represented by unions can also file
grievances over discrimination and reprisal claims under the terms of collective bargaining
agreements. In those situations, the employee must choose to seek relief either under the
statutory procedures discussed above or under the negotiated grievance procedure, but not both.
If an employee files a grievance alleging discrimination under the negotiated grievance
procedure, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) can review any resulting arbitrator’s
decision. A grievant may appeal the final decision of the agency, the arbitrator, or FRLA to
EEOC. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (2003).
12 Statement of J. Christopher Mihm of the General Accounting Office, before the House
Committee on the Judiciary, May 9, 2001.
“reasonable time” to reimburse the Judgment Fund and provides that the repayments may
be extended over several years to avoid layoffs or furloughs.
Employee Notification and Training. Agencies must give their employees,
former employees, and applicants for employment written notification of federal anti-
discrimination and whistleblower protection laws. Such notification must include posting13
the information on the agency’s web site. Agencies are also required to provide their
employees with training as regards the rights and remedies available to them under these
laws. And federal managers “should” be trained “in the management of a diverse
workforce and in dispute resolution and other essential communication skills.”14
Responsibility for ensuring that agencies inform and educate employees on whistleblower
protection rests with OSC, the independent agency charged by Congress with
investigating and prosecuting the eleven prohibited personnel practices specified in the
CSRA.
Annual Reporting. Agencies are required to file annual reports with designated
congressional officers and committees, the EEOC, and the Attorney General including:
!the number and status of cases filed against them by employees under
federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws
!the amount of money required to be reimbursed in connection with each
case
!agency policy relating to disciplinary actions against employees who
discriminate or commit other prohibited personnel practices
!the number of employees disciplined
!year-end statistical data on the number and type of all complaints filed,
the processing time for complaints, the number and type of final agency
action involving a finding of discrimination, and related matters
!an analysis of all such information15
The Act also requires GAO to study the effect of eliminating the requirement that federal
employees exhaust administrative remedies before filing complaints with the EEOC and
the effects on federal agency operations of the reimbursement requirements of the No
FEAR Act and the Contract Disputes Act of 1978.16
13 P.L. 107-174, § 202.
14 Id. at § 102(5)(B).
15 Id. at § 203.
16 Id. at § 206.
Posting of EEO Complaint Data. Each federal agency must post on its public
website summary statistical data relating to EEO complaints filed against the agency. 17
Data for the current fiscal year is to be posted on a cumulative basis (year- to- date
information), updated quarterly. Agencies must also post year-end data for the five
previous fiscal years for comparison purposes. The EEOC is required to post
government-wide, summary statistical data pertaining to hearing requested under 2918
C.F.R. Part 1614 and appeals filed with the EEOC. The posting of EEO data on agency
public web sites is intended to assist Congress, the agencies, and the public assess the
extent of agency compliance with their EEO responsibilities.
17 Id. at § 301.
18 Id. at § 302.