United States Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges Law Library

NOTICE: THIS INDEX WAS PREPARED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FOR INTERNAL USE. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CASES, AND WAS LAST REVISED IN NOVEMBER, 1996.

Return to Table of Topics, 503 Index

Enforcement actions are not a mere subterfuge for private actions if the relief sought is aimed at circumstances revealed by an investigation begun in response to a private complaint. OFCCP v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 79-OFC-10A, ALJ Rec. Dec., November 9, 1982, slip op. at 17; remanded on other grounds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Decision and Order of Remand, February 24, 1994; Consent Order, October 13, 1995.

The amendment to the statute that allows a recovery of attorneys' fees implies that Congress intended a private right of action to exist. Id. at 11-7; remanded on other grounds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Decision and Order of Remand, February 24, 1994; Consent Order, October 13, 1995.

Complaining handicapped worker is not a party to 503 actions. There is no private right of action. OFCCP v. Burlington Northern Railroad, 81-OFCCP-21, ALJ Dec. on Motions and Prehearing Order, February 8, 1984, slip op. at 2.

Courts have generally held that Section 503, unlike Section 504 (which applies to programs receiving Federal financial assistance), provides no private right of action; an aggrieved employee must register a complaint with OFCCP and OFCCP may then file an action against the employer on behalf of the employee. OFCCP v. Exxon Corporation, 92-OFC-4, ALJ Rec. Dec. and Order, June 15, 1993, slip op. at 21; affirmed on other grounds, Administrative Review Board Final Decision and Order, October 28, 1996.

The Assistant Secretary held that while there are many cases stating that there is no private right of action under Section 503, no where do those cases hold that OFCCP cannot seek a remedy on behalf of a complainant. OFCCP v. Commonwealth Aluminum, 82-OFC-6, Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Final Decision and Order, February 10, 1994, at 25, and n.13; remanded sub. nom., Commonwealth Aluminum Corp. v. U.S. Department of Labor, No. 94-0071-0(c)(W.D. Ky. September 6, 1996).

The Assistant Secretary held that cases holding that a private right of action cannot be implied from Section 503 do not lead to the conclusion that Section 503 does not prohibit discrimination against the disabled. To the contrary, many of these cases rely in part on the existence of administrative remedies as a basis for concluding that a private right of action in court may not be inferred. OFCCP v. American Airlines, Inc., 94-OFC-9, Assistant Secretary For Employment Standards Decision and Remand Order,

April 26, 1996 at 13.

When OFCCP seeks enforcement of Section 503, it is vindicating the government's interest in performance of one of the terms of the contract, not suing or initiating enforcement on behalf of private individuals. In this respect, Section 503 is indistinguishable from Executive order 11246. Id. at 18-19, n.10.