OFCCP seeks to undo Trump-era predetermination regs

So much for transparency!  

Today, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would largely rescind enforcement procedures codified in 2020 during the Trump Administration.

The proposed rule seeks to eliminate what the OFCCP now considers “rigid” and “inflexible” evidentiary requirements that were put in place in 2020 for the Predetermination Notice and Notice of Violation. The PDN is the OFCCP’s first formal opportunity to notify a contractor that it has found preliminary indicators of a violation. The agency uses the NOV to notify a contractor that it has found a violation. 

Before the 2020 regulations were issued, the OFCCP typically provided little, if any, information regarding the basis for its findings at the PDN and NOV stages. The 2020 regulations codified the evidentiary and information production standards that must apply. As we reported when the regulations were issued, the OFCCP is generally required to present "quantitative evidence of discrimination that has practical significance." For claims of disparate treatment, the OFCCP must show qualitative evidence of discriminatory intent. For claims of disparate impact, the OFCCP must identify a specific policy or practice causing the impact. The 2020 regulations were hailed by contractors as providing much-needed transparency to the OFCCP’s enforcement procedures. 

The proposed rule issued today would eliminate these standards from the OFCCP enforcement process. As its rationale for the changes, the OFCCP says that it

believes the 2020 rule’s inflexible evidentiary requirements mandate overly particularized and confusing evidentiary definitions that impede OFCCP’s ability to tailor the pre-enforcement process to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, delay information exchange with contractors, and create obstacles to remedying discrimination.

The OFCCP provides scant evidence regarding the basis for its belief that the 2020 regulations have impeded its enforcement efforts, stating only that it has had “time-consuming disputes with contractors over the application of the new requirements” and that “several contractors” have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that the OFCCP had presented. (Yeah, contractors never did that before!)

Another significant proposed change is the rescission of the 30-day period for a contractor to respond to the PDN with its evidence and arguments in rebuttal. The OFCCP proposes reverting to the previous 15-day period “to promote greater efficiency.” Many contractors applauded the enlarged time frame provided by the 2020 regulations because responding to the OFCCP’s allegations of discrimination usually requires complex and sophisticated analysis, including the use of outside statistical experts. Preparing a substantive rebuttal in two weeks is not realistic for many contractors. The OFCCP does, however, indicate that it could extend the deadline if “good cause” is shown. 

If the 2020 regulations are substantially rescinded as proposed, the OFCCP would be able to return to its prior practice of alleging discrimination without providing contractors with the evidence on which it relies. However, the proposed regulations would still allow contractors the opportunity to engage in expedited conciliation by waiving the PDN or NOV process. 

Comments on the proposed regulations are due no later than April 21.

From developments in pay equity and changing requirements in data reporting, to DEI risk mitigation, Title VII compliance, and shifts in enforcement of Section 503 & VEVRAA, the EEO Compliance Dispatch blog is designed to keep employers informed and ahead of the curve.

Whether you’re a federal contractor navigating audits, an HR professional tackling pay transparency, or in-house counsel tracking state and local reporting requirements, our updates, legal analysis, and compliance strategies are tailored to help you manage risk and support a more inclusive workplace.

Search

Get Updates By Email

Subscribe

Archives

Jump to Page

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When using this website, Constangy and certain third parties may collect and use cookies or similar technologies to enhance your experience. These technologies may collect information about your device, activity on our website, and preferences. Some cookies are essential to site functionality, while others help us analyze performance and usage trends to improve our content and features.

Please note that if you return to this website from a different browser or device, you may need to reselect your cookie preferences.

For more information about our privacy practices, including your rights and choices, please see our Privacy Policy. 

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Strictly Necessary Cookies are essential for the website to function, and cannot be turned off. We use this type of cookie for purposes such as security, network management, and accessibility. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but if you do so, some parts of the site will not work. 

Functionality Cookies

Always Active

Functionality Cookies are used to enhance the functionality and personalization of this website. These cookies support features like embedded content (such as video or audio), keyword search highlighting, and remembering your preferences across pages—for example, your cookie choices or form inputs during submission.

Some of these cookies are managed by third-party service providers whose features are embedded on our site. These cookies do not store personal information and are necessary for certain site features to work properly.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek