The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a major policy shift with serious implications for federal employees. Acting Chair Andrea R. Lucas recently announced that the EEOC will no longer allow Administrative Judges (AJs) to impose monetary sanctions, such as attorney’s fees or costs, against federal agencies.
For federal employees, this change removes a key safeguard in cases where agencies fail to meet deadlines or comply with orders from Administrative Judges. This move significantly limits how the EEOC can respond when agencies violate regulatory deadlines or disobey AJ orders, situations that, in the past, might have triggered financial consequences.
Why the EEOC Believed It Could Sanction Federal Agencies
For years, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believed it had the authority to issue monetary sanctions when agencies failed to comply with deadlines or AJ orders. That view was supported by internal case law and the agency’s interpretation of its statutory powers.
One key case was Mirabal v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0720120007 (Nov. 9, 2012), brought by Debra D’Agostino, a Founding Partner of Federal Practice Group. In that case, the EEOC found that an Administrative Judge properly ordered the agency to pay attorney’s fees incurred because of delays in a hearing.
The EEOC supported that decision by citing Matheny v. Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05A30373 (Apr. 21, 2005). In Matheny, the EEOC concluded that it had the authority to issue monetary sanctions based on 29 U.S.C. § 633a(b), which gives the Commission the power to:
“Issue such rules, regulations, orders, and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities”
The statute also requires federal agencies to:
“Comply with such rules, regulations, orders, and instructions”
Based on that language, the EEOC interpreted the statute as containing a waiver of sovereign immunity, allowing the agency to impose financial penalties in appropriate cases.
Sovereign immunity is a legal principle that protects the federal government from being sued or penalized financially unless Congress has clearly given permission. If that permission (known as a waiver) doesn’t exist in the law, agencies can’t be forced to pay monetary penalties, even if they’ve violated rules or deadlines.
Chair Lucas: EEOC Can’t Sanction Agencies Without Congress
Chair Lucas’s May 2025 memorandum rejects the EEOC’s earlier interpretation. She asserted that sovereign immunity “shields the federal government” from monetary sanctions unless Congress expressly allows them, and no such waiver exists in the relevant EEOC statutes.
Chair Lucas stated that her approach aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine. Under Chevron, courts had deferred to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. But in Loper Bright, the Court ruled that courts must exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes and may not automatically defer to agency views.
Citing this decision, Chair Lucas emphasized that it is the role of courts, not agencies, to determine whether a statute authorizes monetary sanctions. Accordingly, she directed the EEOC to withdraw any prior policies, rulings, or practices that conflict with her interpretation.
How the EEOC Will Enforce Complaints Without Financial Penalties
While the EEOC will no longer impose monetary sanctions, it still retains several tools to ensure agency compliance in the federal employee complaint process.
According to Chair Lucas’s memo, Administrative Judges may continue to:
-
Draw adverse inferences when agencies fail to respond or comply with discovery rules
-
Exclude evidence submitted in violation of EEOC procedures
-
Resolve factual disputes in favor of the other party when agencies miss deadlines
-
Take other appropriate procedural actions to ensure fairness and efficiency
These enforcement mechanisms allow the EEOC to maintain the integrity of the complaint process without exceeding its statutory authority.
A Step Backward for Federal Employee Protections
This change strips away an important tool for holding agencies accountable when they violate EEOC procedures. Without the threat of financial consequences, federal employees are left with fewer protections. Federal Practice Group continues to advocate for employee rights and holds agencies accountable through every lawful avenue available. If your agency has failed to follow the rules, speak with an attorney who can help you assert your rights.