Reasonable accommodation is any change or adjustment to a job or work environment to enable a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the job application process, to perform the essential functions of a job, or to enjoy benefits and privileges of employment equal to those enjoyed by employees without disabilities. For example, reasonable accommodation may include:

• acquiring or modifying equipment or devices,
• job restructuring,
• part-time or modified work schedules,
• reassignment to a vacant position,
• adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials or policies,
• providing readers and interpreters, and
• making the workplace readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.

Yes. It is a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to fail to provide reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability, unless to do so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of CBP’s programs. Undue hardship means that the accommodation would require significant difficulty or expense.

CBP Employee: Employees with disabilities who desire accommodations shall: 1) Request an accommodation either orally or in writing to his or her immediate supervisor, another supervisor or manager in his/her chain of command, or to a PDO staff member; 2) Provide an interactive evaluation and accommodation recommendation from their treating health care provider, if requested; and 3) Provide a description of the accommodation requested, if known, and the explanation of how it would enable him or her to perform the job.

CBP Prospective Employee: An applicant for employment with CBP who has received a final selection letter and requires an accommodation to perform job duties or to access a benefit of employment (e.g., training, office-sponsored events, emergency evacuation), shall email a Request for Reasonable Accommodation to PDOTaskings@cbp.dhs.gov.

CBP Applicant: The reasonable accommodation process begins for an applicant, when the applicant, or someone acting on his/her behalf, presents a request for accommodation either orally or in writing to the Indianapolis or Minneapolis Hiring Center or to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) when OPM is the agency that is administering assessments to applicants.

For additional information, employees should contact their servicing DCR Officer.

CBP’s reasonable accommodation procedures may be accessed at CBP Directive No. 51713-007A - Reasonable Accommodation Procedures for Applicants and Employees with Disabilities.

The individual and agency should engage in an "interactive process" to determine whether and what type accommodation is appropriate. This involves an informal discussion with the requester, facilitated by the assigned PDO staff member, to determine a suitable accommodation. The employee shares responsibility for making the interactive process work by providing information that the agency reasonably needs to evaluate the accommodation request. For example, the agency may ask the employee for suggested accommodation solutions and preferences or for supporting medical information for a number of reasons—for example, to verify the existence of a disability if it is not obvious and/or to understand the employee’s limitations so that an accommodation can be identified that addresses the specific limitations.

The requirement generally will be triggered by a request from an individual with a disability, who frequently can suggest an appropriate accommodation. Accommodations must be made on a case-by-case basis, because the nature and extent of a disabling condition and the requirements of the job will vary. The principal test in selecting a particular type of accommodation is that of effectiveness, i.e., whether the accommodation will enable the person with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job. It need not be the best accommodation or the accommodation the individual with a disability would prefer, although consideration is given to the preference of the individual involved. However, the local senior management official serving as the Decision-maker will have final discretion to choose between effective accommodations, and s/he may select one that is least expensive or easier to provide.

No. CBP’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation applies only to known physical or mental limitations that substantially limit one or more major life activities or there is a record of impairment. Management does not assume that an employee with even an obvious disability cannot perform the functions of his/her job. Thus, an employee needs to inform the employer if any limitations associated with the employee’s disability require an accommodation.

When a qualified employee with a disability is unable to perform his or her present job even with the provision of a reasonable accommodation, CBP must consider reassigning the employee to an existing position that she can perform with or without a reasonable accommodation. The requirement to consider reassignment applies only to employees and not to applicants. In attempting to reassign an employee as an accommodation, CBP will seek vacant funded positions for positions that the employee is qualified to perform. CBP is not required to create a position or to bump another employee in order to create a vacancy. Nor is CBP required to promote an employee with a disability to a higher level position.

Yes, such a person is protected. The determination as to whether a person has a disability under the Rehabilitation Act is made without regard to mitigating measures, such as medications, auxiliary aids and reasonable accommodations. If an individual has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, she is protected under the Rehabilitation Act, regardless of the fact that the disease or condition or its effects may be corrected or controlled. However, a person with such a disability may not need accommodating if the disability is not currently interfering with the employee’s ability to perform his/her job duties.

No. Recreational or social users of alcohol or drugs are not protected under the Rehabilitation Act. The Act does, however, protect rehabilitated alcoholics and rehabilitated drug abusers as well as those who are undergoing rehabilitation, provided that such individuals can still perform the functions of their job. However, the fact that a recovering alcoholic or drug addict is covered by the Rehabilitation Act will not protect that employee from the consequences of his or her misconduct, even if the misconduct is associated with the alcoholism or other addiction.

No. Federal law requires agencies to provide reasonable accommodations for disability, but pregnancy is not considered a disability. However, if an employee has a pregnancy-related medical condition or temporary disability relating to pregnancy, the employer must treat the employee the same way it treats other employees who have other medical conditions and/or temporary disabilities. In addition, certain medical conditions relating to pregnancy, for example, gestational diabetes may be considered disabilities, a determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis.

No. Only qualified applicants and employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation. For example, the Rehabilitation Act would not require an employer to modify its leave policy for an employee who needs time off to care for a child with a disability. However, an employer must avoid treating an employee differently than other employees because of his or her association with a person with a disability. Although not eligible for a reasonable accommodation, CBP employees who face difficulties because of such circumstances are encouraged to speak with the immediate supervisor to discuss available alternatives and to contact the Employee Assistance Program for support or assistance.

The employee should promptly notify her or his immediate supervisor and the DCR Officer assigned to facilitate the request for reasonable accommodation. The DCR Officer will assist in resolving the issue.

A “pandemic” is a global “epidemic” of an infectious disease.  The most recent pandemics have been influenza pandemics such as the H1N1 outbreak in 2009.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) are the definitive sources of information about influenza and other pandemics.

The ADA is relevant to pandemic preparation in three ways.  First, the ADA regulates CBP’s disability-related inquiries and medical examinations for all applicants and employees, including those who do not have ADA disabilities. Second, the ADA prohibits CBP from excluding individuals with disabilities from the workplace for health or safety reasons unless they pose a “direct threat.” Third, the ADA requires reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities (absent undue hardship) during a pandemic.

A direct threat is a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. If an individual with a disability poses a direct threat despite reasonable accommodation, he or she is not protected by the nondiscrimination provisions of the ADA.

No. An inquiry asking an employee to disclose a compromised immune system or a chronic health condition is disability-related because the response is likely to disclose the existence of a disability. The ADA does not permit such an inquiry in the absence of objective evidence that pandemic symptoms will cause a direct threat. Such evidence is completely absent before a pandemic occurs.

Yes, if all entering employees in the same job category are required to undergo the medical examination and if the information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the applicant is collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and is treated as a confidential medical record.

No, unless the applicant would pose a direct threat within the meaning of the ADA. A finding of “direct threat” must be based on reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available evidence such as objective information from the CDC or state or local health authorities. The finding must be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job, after considering, among other things, the imminence of the risk; the severity of the harm; and the availability of reasonable accommodations to reduce the risk. Before concluding that an individual poses a direct threat, the employer must determine whether a reasonable accommodation could reduce the risk below the direct threat level, absent any medical condition that would preclude their use of medical countermeasures or immunizations.

Yes. The CDC states that employees who become ill with symptoms of pandemic disease-like illness at work during a pandemic should leave the workplace.  Advising such workers to go home is not a disability-related action if the illness is akin to the pandemic in question.  Additionally, the action would be permitted under the ADA if the illness were serious enough to pose a direct threat.

CBP can ask employees if they are experiencing relevant symptoms, such as fever or chills. CBP must maintain all information about employee illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the ADA.

Yes. If an employees’ symptoms become more severe than the seasonal flu or if a pandemic disease becomes widespread in the community as assessed by state or local health authorities or the CDC, then CBP may measure employees’ body temperature.

No. These would not be disability-related inquiries. If the CDC or state or local public health officials recommend that people who visit specified locations remain at home for several days until it is clear they do not have pandemic disease symptoms, an employer may ask whether employees are returning from these locations, even if the travel was personal.

No. If the identified pandemic is like the seasonal influenza, making disability-related inquiries or requiring medical examinations of employees without symptoms is prohibited by the ADA.

• If an employee voluntarily discloses (without a disability-related inquiry) that he has a specific medical condition or disability that puts him or her at increased risk of pandemic disease related complications, the employer must keep this information confidential. The employer may ask him to describe the type of assistance he thinks will be needed (e.g. telework or leave for a medical appointment). Employers should not assume that all disabilities increase the risk of pandemic disease complications. Many disabilities do not increase this risk (e.g., vision or mobility disabilities).
• If a designated pandemic condition becomes more severe or serious according to the assessment of local, state or federal public health officials, CBP may have sufficient objective information from public health advisories to reasonably conclude that employees will face a direct threat if they contract the pandemic designated condition. Only in this circumstance can CBP make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations of asymptomatic employees to identify those at higher risk of pandemic related complications.

Yes. Telework is an effective infection-control strategy that is also familiar to ADA-covered employers as a reasonable accommodation.

• Telework (i.e., working from an alternative location) is an example of “social distancing,” which public health authorities may require in the event of a pandemic. “Social distancing” reduces physical contact between people to minimize disease transmission by, for example, avoiding hand-shakes and keeping a distance from others in public places. Other social distancing practices that may be implemented during a pandemic include: “closing schools; canceling public gatherings; planning for liberal work leave policies; . . . voluntary isolation of [pandemic infection] cases; and voluntary quarantine of household contacts.” See Centers for Disease Control& Prevention, Interim Pre-pandemic Planning Guidance: Community Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Mitigation.
• Employees with disabilities may request telework as a reasonable accommodation, even if the employer does not have a policy allowing it. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Work at Home/Telework as a Reasonable Accommodation (Oct 27, 2005).
• In addition, employees with disabilities that put them at high risk for complications of a pandemic condition may request telework as a reasonable accommodation to reduce their chances of infection during a pandemic.

Yes. Requiring infection control practices, such as regular hand washing, coughing and sneezing etiquette, and proper tissue usage and disposal, does not implicate the ADA.

Yes. CBP may require employees to wear personal protective equipment during a pandemic. However, where an employee with a disability needs a related reasonable accommodation under the ADA (e.g., non-latex gloves, or gowns designed for individuals who use wheelchairs), CBP must provide these, absent undue hardship.

No. An employee may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability that prevents him from taking the vaccine. This would be a reasonable accommodation barring undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). Similarly, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII (“more than de minimis cost” to the operation of the employer’s business, which is a lower standard than under the ADA).

Generally, ADA-covered employers should consider simply encouraging employees to get the influenza or other infectious disease vaccine rather than requiring them to take it.

Yes. An employer’s ADA responsibilities to individuals with disabilities continue during a pandemic. Only when an employer can demonstrate that a person with a disability poses a direct threat, even after reasonable accommodation, can it lawfully exclude him from employment or employment-related activities.

• If an employee with a disability needs the same reasonable accommodation at a telework site that he had at the workplace, in most instances, CBP will continue to provide the existing accommodation, absent undue hardship. In the event of undue hardship, CBP will collaborate with the employee to identify an alternative reasonable accommodation.
• All employees with disabilities whose responsibilities include management during a pandemic must receive reasonable accommodations necessitated by pandemic conditions, unless undue hardship is established.

Yes. Asking why an individual did not report to work is not a disability-related inquiry. An employer is always entitled to know why an employee has not reported for work.

Yes. Such inquiries are permitted under the ADA either because they would not be disability-related or, if the pandemic were truly severe, they would be justified under the ADA standards for disability-related inquiries of employees.

• As a practical matter, however, doctors and other health care professionals may be too busy during and immediately after a pandemic outbreak to provide fitness-for-duty documentation. Therefore, new approaches may be necessary, such as reliance on local clinics to provide a form, a stamp, or an e-mail to certify that an individual does not have the pandemic disease.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers.  For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.  An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.  Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”  Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held.  Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”  Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.

Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities.  Whether a practice is religious depends on the employee’s motivation.  The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons (e.g., dietary restrictions, tattoos, etc.).

A religious accommodation is a modification or adjustment to the application process or the work environment to allow the individual to practice his or her religious beliefs without creating an undue hardship on CBP.

Yes. It is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to fail to provide a reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs and/or practices of employees and applicants for employment unless providing a reasonable accommodation would result in undue hardship to CBP. Undue hardship means more than de minimis cost or burden on the operation of CBP. Note that this is a lower standard to meet than undue hardship under the Rehabilitation Act, which is defined in that statute as "significant difficulty or expense."

Employer-employee cooperation and flexibility are key to the search for a reasonable religious accommodation.  If the accommodation solution is not immediately apparent, an appropriate management official in a session facilitated by the assigned PDO staff member will discuss the request with the employee to determine what accommodations might be effective.  If CBP requests additional information reasonably needed to evaluate the request, the employee should provide it. For example, if an employee has requested a schedule change to accommodate daily prayers, CBP may need to ask for information about the religious observance, such as time and duration of the daily prayers, in order to determine whether accommodation can be granted without posing an undue hardship on the operation of CBP.  Moreover, even if the employer does not grant the employee’s preferred accommodation, but instead provides an alternative accommodation, the employee must cooperate by attempting to meet his or her religious needs through the proposed accommodation.

No.  Title VII requires the agency to accommodate only those religious beliefs that are religious and “sincerely held,” and that can be accommodated without an undue hardship.  Although there is usually no reason to question whether the practice at issue is religious or sincerely held, if CBP has a bona fide doubt about the basis for the accommodation request, it is entitled to make a limited inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employee’s claim that the belief or practice at issue is religious and sincerely held, and gives rise to the need for the accommodation.

Factors that – either alone or in combination – might undermine an employee’s assertion that he sincerely holds the religious belief at issue include: whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief; whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons; whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons); and whether the agency otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons.

However, none of these factors is dispositive.  For example, although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant to the question of sincerity, an individual’s beliefs – or degree of adherence – may change over time, and therefore an employee’s newly adopted or inconsistently observed religious practice may nevertheless be sincerely held.  The agency also should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of his or her practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of his or her religion.

Federal law requires agencies to provide employees reasonable accommodation for employees’ religious beliefs and practices. Thus, you are entitled to a religious accommodation to attend your weekly religious service, but the accommodation you are entitled to will not necessarily be a permanent shift assignment. The accommodation will depend on the needs of the agency. If you need a change in schedule or other change to accommodate your religion, you should make a reasonable accommodation request to your immediate supervisor.

An accommodation would pose an undue hardship if it –would cause more than de minimis cost on the operation of CPB.  Factors relevant to undue hardship may include the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the agency, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation.

Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of CBP’s business.  For example, courts have found undue hardship where the accommodation diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, or causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law will also be considered.

To prove undue hardship, CBP will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption a proposed accommodation would involve.  The agency cannot rely on potential or hypothetical hardship when faced with a religious obligation that conflicts with scheduled work, but rather should rely on objective information.  A mere assumption that many more people with the same religious practices as the individual being accommodated may also seek accommodation is not evidence of undue hardship.  If the agency’s proposed accommodation would pose an undue hardship, the agency should explore alternative accommodations.

No.  A proposed religious accommodation poses an undue hardship if it would deprive another employee of a job preference or other benefit guaranteed by a bona fide seniority system or collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  Of course, the mere existence of a seniority system or CBA does not relieve CBP of the duty to attempt reasonable accommodation of its employees’ religious practices; the question is whether an accommodation can be provided without violating the seniority system or CBA.  Often the agency can allow co-workers to volunteer to substitute or swap shifts as an accommodation to address a scheduling need without violating a seniority system or CBA.

Although religious accommodations that infringe on co-workers’ ability to perform their duties or subject co-workers to a hostile work environment will generally constitute undue hardship, general disgruntlement, resentment, or jealousy of co-workers will not.  Undue hardship requires more than proof that some co-workers complained; a showing of undue hardship based on co-worker interests generally requires evidence that the accommodation would actually infringe on the rights of co-workers or cause disruption of work.

If a religious practice actually conflicts with a legally mandated security requirement, CBP does not have to accommodate the practice because doing so would create an undue hardship.  If a security requirement has been unilaterally imposed by CBP and is not required by law or regulation, the agency will need to decide whether it would be an undue hardship to modify or eliminate the requirement to accommodate an employee who has a religious conflict.

Under Title VII, CBP may use a variety of methods to provide reasonable accommodations to its employees.  Some of the most common methods are:

• Scheduling changes, voluntary substitutes, and shift swaps;
• Changing an employee’s job tasks or providing a lateral transfer;
• Making an exception to dress and grooming rules;
• Use of the work facility for a religious observance;
• Accommodations relating to payment of union dues or agency fees; and
• Accommodating prayer, proselytizing, and other forms of religious expression.

The First Amendment religion and speech clauses (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”) protect individuals against restrictions imposed by the government.  Government employees’ religious expression is protected by both the First Amendment and Title VII.  See Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace (Aug. 14, 1997).  For example, a government employer may contend that granting a requested religious accommodation would pose an undue hardship because it would constitute government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Equal Employment Opportunity is fair treatment in employment, promotion, training, and other personnel actions without regard to race, color, religion, sex (which includes gender, sexual harassment, and pregnancy), age, national origin, reprisal (for prior EEO activity), physical or mental disability, genetic information, status as a parent, and sexual orientation. To make sure that all Federal employees and applicants for employment with the Federal Government are provided this opportunity, certain laws and regulations were issued containing the legal basis for EEO programs in Federal agencies.

An EEO complaint is an allegation of discrimination because of membership in a protected class covered under the Federal anti-discrimination laws or Executive Orders.

Yes. During the Pre-Complaint process, a complaint can be filed even if your issue does not allege unlawful discrimination; however, to move to the next stage in the process, this type of complaint would be dismissed for failing to state a valid claim of discrimination. Therefore, first consider discussing the matter with your supervisor to work through a resolution to your issue. Additionally, there are other avenues to consider if the issue bringing you concern is not based on unlawful discrimination. Some of these avenues may include:

• An appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) where an action is otherwise appealable to the Board and the employee alleges that the basis for the action was discrimination prohibited by Federal law;
• A complaint of possible prohibited personnel practice with the Office of Special Counsel; and/or
• A negotiated or administrative grievance.

You may initiate an informal EEO complaint by sending an email to: cbpeeocomplaintfiling@dhs.gov, with a brief statement on why you believe that you have been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Your email should also include your telephone number and address.

You may also initiate an informal EEO complaint by calling (1-877) MY-EEO-HELP (1-877-693-3643), or by contacting your servicing DCR Officer.

To preserve the right to file a formal EEO complaint, individuals who believe they have been subjected to unlawful discrimination must seek informal EEO counseling within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory act. The allegation will be assigned to a PDO staff member to conduct informal EEO counseling. At the initial interview, the EEO counselor will explain the EEO complaint process and the option to participate in mediation.

While you have the right to be accompanied and advised by a representative at every stage of the EEO process, as long as there is no conflict of interest or position, you do not need to have a representative. If you choose to be represented during the informal EEO counseling process, you must complete a Designation of Representative Form and submit it to the appropriate EEO official.

You should be prepared to provide information and describe the what, when and how you were discriminated against. Be prepared to provide the full names of the involved persons, dates of the incidents, and to discuss what remedies could resolve the issues.

Official time (administrative leave) is appropriate when CBP employees who participate in the equal employment opportunity complaint process as complainants, witnesses, and/or representatives are requested or required to participate during an official administrative (informal and formal) EEO complaint process. Official time must be requested and approved in advance. It is not authorized for participation in federal court EEO proceedings.

An EEO complaint becomes formal when the Complainant completes the DHS Formal Complaint Form 3090, provided to them by their EEO Counselor at the conclusion of counseling, and that form is filed within 15 calendar days from receipt of the Notice of Right to File (NORTF) letter with the Privacy and Diversity Office, Complaints Management and Investigations Group (CMIG).

The complaint form must be signed by the aggrieved party or the party's attorney. The complaint must include the telephone number and the address of the complainant and/or the chosen representative. The complaint itself must precisely identify the complainant and agency. A general description of the alleged discriminatory action or practice must also be included.

The Complaints Management and Investigations Group will acknowledge receipt of the complaint in writing and inform the complainant of his/her rights during the formal complaint process.

Upon receipt of the Notice of Right to File (NORTF), the decision will be made to either dismiss or investigate the claim. If insufficient information is included in the formal complaint in order to determine what action to take on the allegations, the Complaints Management and Investigations Group will contact the Complainant and request additional information.

The Complainant has a duty to respond to requests for addition information made by the Complaints Management and Investigations Group. Failure to respond in the specified time limits may result in dismissal of the formal complaint.

If another issue of discrimination arises during the course of the investigation, a Complainant may request to amend the complaint at any time prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The Complainant must make this request in writing to the Complaints Management and Investigations Group (CMIG) that outlines the new issue and explain why the Complainant believes this new issue to be discriminatory. This request must be signed and dated by the Complainant. It is up to the CMIG to accept or dismiss the amendment as it must be "like or related" to the current claims accepted for investigation.

Any employee who is covered by the National Treasury Employees’ Union (NTEU) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) who believes that he or she has been discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or reprisal for filing a claim on one of these bases, except where required by statute or pursuant to bona fide occupational qualifications may file a grievance.

Any federal employee may initiate a statutory complaint of discrimination under EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. §1614.

• The terms of this Agreement apply to all professional and nonprofessional CBP employees,  excluding:  Employees in the Office of Border Patrol assigned to Border Patrol Sectors; Employees of the Office of Chief Counsel; Management officials, supervisors, and other employees excluded from the bargaining unit in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7112(b) (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
• Discrimination bases under applicable Federal law and Executive Orders include: race, sex, religion, color, national origin, reprisal (for prior EEO activity), disability, age, genetic information, status as a parent, and sexual orientation.

If your complaint is dismissed in its entirety, the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will issue a final agency decision to notify you in writing of the reason your claim is being dismissed. The dismissal is appealable to the EEOC.

An EEO Investigator will be assigned to conduct the EEO investigation. You will be notified in writing of the issues accepted for investigation and the name of the investigator, who is authorized to conduct the investigation. In most instances, CBP’s EEO Investigators are full-time CBP employees assigned to the Privacy and Diversity Office, Complaints Management and Investigations Group.

The EEO investigator reviews the complaint to determine if it meets the requirements for acceptance. If the claim is accepted, the assigned EEO Investigator will conduct the investigation within 180 calendar days from the filing date of the claim. The investigator serves as an unbiased fact gatherer identifying and securing information through interviews of witnesses and review of written records. This information is compiled into an investigative file which must be thorough enough to enable an appointed decision maker to make a final decision as to whether unlawful employment discrimination occurred with regard to the claims investigated.

By regulation, CBP must complete the investigation within 180 calendar days from the date of receipt of the formal complaint. If the complaint is amended CBP is allowed to complete the investigation within the earlier of 180 days after the last amendment to the complaint, or 360 days after filing the original complaint.

An impartial and appropriate factual record will be drafted by the investigating agency. The EEO Investigator will solicit declarations from the involved parties and document evidence to compile an accurate record of the claims. From this record, a third-party will determine findings on the claims made by the aggrieved party. An appropriate factual record is defined as one that allows a reasonable fact finder to draw conclusion on whether discrimination occurred.

Once CBP completes the investigation, it will provide the Complainant with an electronic copy of the investigative file (IF) along with the election notice.  Complainant will get 15 days (from receipt of the IF) to review and make a request to supplement the IF and 30 days (from receipt of the election notice) to either request a hearing and decision from an EEOC Administrative Judge, or request an immediate final decision from the agency.

No. Managers and supervisors are not provided with copies of statutory Investigative files, however, for EEO Grievance Investigative files, the head of the office does receive a copy of the Investigative file.

If a Complainant requests a hearing before an Administrative Judge, CBP will immediately transmit the Investigative File (IF) to the appropriate EEOC office. Once the file has been transmitted, CBP no longer retains jurisdiction over the complaint and all further questions should be directed to the appropriate EEOC Office. Procedures regarding the EEOC hearing process can be found at EEOC’s website.

If the complainant does not request a hearing before an EEOC AJ, the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) is required by regulation to issue a decision in 60 days. CRCL will notify the Complainant in writing of its decision. CRCL will also provide the employee with appeal rights, if the employee desires to appeal the Final Agency Decision. In addition, if a complainant elects a hearing before the EEOC, and the EEOC administrative judge issues a decision, CRCL must issue a FAD on behalf of DHS within 60 calendar days.