In recent weeks, guidance was released by the EEOC’s Joint Reporting Committee detailing that employers with employees who “regularly report” to client sites must now report those employees on an EEO-1 report with the address of the client site, as opposed to reporting them with the employer’s own address. Employers were directed to page 132 of the “2017 EEO-1 User Guide” and page 5 of the “How to File an EEO-1 Report” for further support on this updated guidance.
When the original filing guidance was posted to the EEO-1 filing website, contractors began to question whether they were required to begin submitting EEO-1 filings for their clients’ sites, and if so, when would the requirement begin and how would the logistics of these filings be conveyed. At the forefront were concerns related to:
- Security – many federal contractors have employees sitting at a secure location. Generally, such sites’ addresses are not known to individuals without the appropriate security clearance.
- Definition of ‘regular reporting’ – with the lack of direction on what constitutes ‘regular reporting’ of employees to a client site, there was no clear basis on which to determine which employees should be reported in client site filings.
- Alignment to Affirmative Action Plans/Functional Affirmative Action Plans – because AAPs and FAAPs are comprised based on physical employer establishments and function business units, there was concern that the EEO-1s would not end up aligning with contractors’ affirmative action programs. This would lead to confusion on how OFCCP compliance review selection would proceed and which employees should be included in audit submission materials.
Fortunately, employers were met with some additional information from a February 22, 2018 NILG webinar led by Benita Marsh of the EEOC, which proves helpful in light of the impending March 31, 2018 filing deadline. Ms. Marsh shared the following:
It has come to the EEOC’s attention that there may be some confusion as to how employers are to report employees working at client sites. Some employers have been reporting the address of client sites for employees, while other employers have instead been rolling those employees up to a non-client site employer address. Given this confusion, employers will not be considered “non-compliant” if they have chosen one approach over the other – either reporting by client site or by non-client site employer address. EEOC is considering how to address client site reporting.
Although the above concerns were not addressed in full, employers can move forward with their 2017 EEO-1 filings as they have been doing in years past without concern of being out of compliance. Additionally, it seems as though the EEOC will be further considering the logistics of client site reporting. Stay tuned for further updates as guidance is shared by the EEOC on this matter.
By Jana Garman, EEO Compliance Manager and Senior Consultant, and Brittany Dian, Associate Consultant at DCI Consulting Group
