Summary

Although the House of Representatives has experienced an annual turnover rate of 25 percent each year since the Office of Fair Employment Practices was established in 1988, the Office has not been routinely informing congressional staff about employees' rights and the office created to enforce them. Unlike its Senate counterpart, the House Office has not been required to develop programs that would, by heightening awareness of employee rights, prevent violations in the first place. The lack of a statutory mandate or House rule could have contributed to the Office's limited educational efforts. By the end of July 1993, the Office had received more than 1,000 inquiries in the 5 years since it had started up. It had not, however, collected data on the exact nature of the information requested or the concerns expressed--information that would allow the Office to target its educational efforts and to anticipate its potential complaint workload. The Office's hearing procedures could be strengthened by (1) barring the appointment of House employees or officers as hearing officers and (2) requiring that hearing officers be familiar with equal employment opportunity and civil rights laws. Also, the Office's procedures for addressing employees' grievances should be extended to House employees working for the Architect of the Capitol.

GAO found that: (1) OFEP has not consistently disseminated information about its existence, employees' rights, and the process for enforcing these rights, in spite of an average annual 25-percent turnover rate among House employees; (2) unlike its Senate counterpart, OFEP does not conduct formal training for employees and employers to make them aware of their rights and protections; (3) House Rule 51, which established OFEP, does not give the Clerk of the House or the OFEP Director the authority to require employing offices to continually post information on employee rights and the complaint process; (4) a survey indicated that only 22 percent of House employees understood the OFEP mission and only 14 percent understood OFEP services; (5) OFEP collects limited, broadly categorized data on inquiries, which limits its ability to target educational efforts and anticipate its complaint workload; (6) House Rule 51 allows the appointment of House employees as hearing officers, does not require that officers have knowledge of various EEO laws, and does not adequately address burden-of-proof requirements; (7) Rule 51 does not include about 800 Architect of the Capitol employees who work for the House as covered employees; and (8) recent legislative proposals regarding the handling of employment discrimination complaints and sexual harassment could affect OFEP operations.