PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.702 / 115th Congress

Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Official summary

Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Apr 4, 2017

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)

Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017

(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 to: (1) expand disclosure and enforcement requirements relating to findings of acts of discrimination and retaliation in the federal workplace, and (2) declare that accountability in the enforcement of federal employee rights is furthered when agencies take appropriate disciplinary action against employees who have been found to have committed discriminatory or retaliatory acts.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

(Sec. 3) With respect to disclosure of findings of discrimination or retaliation in an agency, the bill requires an agency to provide notice on its website for at least one year regarding any finding by the agency or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of discrimination or retaliation in the agency.

(Sec. 4) With respect to agency reporting requirements, the bill requires agencies to:

submit their annual reports to Congress, the EEOC, and the Department of Justice on discrimination and retaliation in an electronic format;

report to the EEOC on whether disciplinary action has been initiated against an employee who has committed an act of discrimination or retaliation; and

include in the data on equal employment opportunity complaints posted on their websites whether a decision has been made to pursue disciplinary action against an employee who has committed an act of discrimination or retaliation and additional data on each class action complaint filed against the agency alleging discrimination or retaliation.

(Sec. 7) The bill also requires agencies to: (1) establish a system to track each complaint of discrimination adjudicated by the EEOC from inception to resolution, including whether a decision has been made on necessary disciplinary action as a result of a finding of discrimination, and (2) make a notation in an employee's personnel record of any adverse action taken against the employee for an act of discrimination or retaliation.

The bill declares that each federal agency is responsible for the fair, impartial processing and resolution of complaints of employment discrimination and retaliation and requires each agency to establish a model Equal Employment Opportunity Program that is not under the control of a Human Capital or General Counsel Office, is devoid of internal conflicts of interest, and ensures fairness, inclusiveness, and the efficient resolution of complaints alleging discrimination or retaliation.

Finally, the bill directs the EEOC to refer a finding of discrimination or retaliation within a federal agency to the Office of Special Counsel. The Special Counsel shall then pursue disciplinary action against any employee who commits an act of discrimination or retaliation.

(Sec. 8) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action shall not with respect to such authority, implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy, form, or agreement prohibits or restricts an employee from disclosing to Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, or an Office of the Inspector General any information that relates to any violation of any law, rule, regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or any other whistleblower protection.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7] · D–MD

Committees

  • Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
  • Oversight and Government Reform Committee
4 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

  2. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  3. On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5398-5399)

  4. Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5398-5399)

  5. DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 702.

  6. Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5398-5402)

  7. Mr. DeSantis moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

  8. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 45.

  9. Reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 115-79.

  10. Reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 115-79.

  11. Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.

  12. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  13. Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

  14. Introduced in House

  15. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.702 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.702 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.702 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.702 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources