In recent months we have received several reports of OFCCP compliance reviews in which misunderstandings have developed concerning the proper interpretation and application of current OFCCP regulations. In most instances clarification from the national office has resolved the situation satisfactorily, but such disagreements nevertheless result in an unnecessary expenditure of time and resources, and often serve as an unfortunate source of conflict between the Agency and contractors. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify those issues over which there appears to be some confusion, and to provide our understanding of current OFCCP national office policy regarding each one. The issues analyzed are the following: Goals Above Availability Not Required Percentage Goals Preferable to Numerical Goals 2 Copyright 1986 by the Equal Employment Advisory Council. All rights reserved. - Standarized Affirmative Action Formats (SAAFS) Deficiencies Corrected During Compliance Reviews. 13 Rehabilitation Act Coverage of AIDS . . . 14 It is not difficult to understand why there may be some confusion over current OFCCP national policies. The regulations presently in effect were promulgated in October of 1978 following consolidation of the enforcement activities of 11 departments and agencies into the CFCCP.1/ A year later the Agency published the Federal Contract Compliance Manual, a 500-page document containing detailed rules, standards and procedures which OFCCP has used as guidance in its enforcement efforts. Given the Manual's overly generous reading of CFCCP's regulatory authority, it has served over the years as a significant source of conflict with contractors.2/ Since 1978, proposals which would make sweeping changes in OFCCP's regulations have been published by both the Carter and Reagan Administrations. Due to a variety of factors, these efforts thus far have not resulted in formal amendments to the 1978 regulations. 3/ 1. The consolidation was analyzed in EEAC Memorandum 78-65 (December 27, 1978). 2. The legal effect of the Manual was discussed in EEAC 3. In 1979, amendments pertaining to conciliation agreements and expedited hearings were finalized. Memorandum 80-5 (January 18, 1980). See EEAC 3 OFCCP nevertheless believes that several of the changes in the regulatory proposals are consistent with existing regulations and therefore can be implemented without waiting for final rules. As a result, over the past few years the national office has issued a series of written "directives" to agency field personnel which provide guidance on specific aspects of program implementation. The directives have not been widely disseminated to the public even though in several instances they refine national policy and amend or rescind portions of the Compliance Manual.4/ To complicate matters further, there have been instances in which crucial instructions have been issued to the field from the national office in verbal rather than written form. As might be expected, these verbal instructions have not always been interpreted and applied in a consistent fashion.5/ Finally, the ongoing debate within the Reagan Administration as to possible changes to Executive Order 11246 has served to prevent OFCCP from issuing additional directives regarding current program requirements. As a result of all of these factors it is not uncommon during compliance reviews and complaint investigations for contractors and agency personnel to have different.views regarding applicable national policies. The analysis which follows identifies several recurring problem areas, and sets forth our understanding of current national OFCCP interpretations. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, and there may well be other issues equally in need of clarification. EEAC would like to be of assistance in this regard, and therefore welcomes suggestions from members for future analyses. Please direct inquires to Jeffrey A. Norris at (202) 789-8650. Kem 4. 5. EEAC Memoranda 83-33 (April 7, 1983) and 86-11 (February 6, 1986) analyze several of the directives which have a substantive impact on affirmative action planning. See EEAC Memorandum 82-103 (December 29, 1982) (relating to |