Statistically significant differences do not prove or disprove  discrimination; rather, they provide information at an aggregate level about  differences in personnel actions and may indicate a need for further  investigation. Half of the Laboratories Showed Differences in Merit Pay Increases for Either Women or Minorities or Both Compared with Men and Whites

While our analysis showed that the merit pay increases for full-time and  nontemporary managerial and professional women and minorities tended  to be statistically comparable to merit pay increases for their respective  counterparts at three of the laboratories, results were mixed at the other  three laboratories. Merit pay increases were higher for women and minorities  at one, higher for women at another, and lower for minorities at the third  compared with men and Whites. Separation Patterns for Women and Minorities Were Generally Comparable to Men and Whites

Managerial and professional women tended to separate from their jobs  (leave) at a comparable rate as men at five of the six laboratories. However, at one  laboratory, women were more likely to leave than men, and at another  laboratory, minorities were more likely to leave than Whites. Laboratory Staff Raised a Number of EEO Concerns

Women and minority staff expressed a number of concerns about their fair  and equitable treatment at the laboratories, focusing primarily on  underrepresentation, the lack of career development opportunities, and the  need to improve the laboratory work environment. The highest number of external cases filed dealt  with sex or race matters. As table 6 shows, pay and termination were the two issues cited most  often. OFCCP and  DOE staff met to discuss the implementation of the recommendation and  the possible creation of a more formal relationship through a memorandum  of understanding. As a result of its review, the  Office of the Solicitor raised questions about DOE’s legal authority to  monitor and to enforce Executive Order 11246, as amended. As a result,  OFCCP has not sent the draft memorandum to DOE for coordination. OFCCP believes that DOE’s diversity plan requirements and policy may put  DOE in the position of evaluating contractors’ compliance with the  requirements of the EEO laws that OFCCP is solely responsible for  enforcing and encroach upon OFCCP’s enforcement authority. While our findings of statistically significant  differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separation patterns for  managerial and professional women and minorities compared with men  and Whites and our finding of a difference at one laboratory in promotion  rates for certain minority groups compared with White men do not prove or  disprove discrimination, they may indicate a need for further investigation. Although  we commend DOE for its desire to have a diverse workforce and its  initiative for including contract clauses to achieve that goal, the  departments of Labor and of Energy need to clarify and reach agreement  about DOE’s role concerning its contractors’ diversity activities. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Scope and Methodology

This appendix details the methods we used to (1) determine whether there  were differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separation patterns  for women and minorities when compared with men and Whites, and in the  promotion rates of groupings of laboratory staff by race/ethnicity and sex  compared with White men, for fiscal years 2001 through mid-2004; (2)  describe equal employment opportunity (EEO) concerns raised by  laboratory staff; and (3) determine the actions the Department of Energy  (DOE) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)  have taken to implement our earlier recommendation to work more  collaboratively to ensure the laboratories’ compliance with EEO. Internal complaint  data include complaints filed and investigated within the laboratory.
Why GAO Did This Study

In April 2002, GAO identified the need to strengthen equal employment opportunity (EEO) oversight at three Department of Energy (DOE) national weapons laboratories and recommended that DOE and the Department of Labor's (DOL) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) collaborate to ensure the laboratories complied with EEO requirements. GAO was subsequently asked to examine six other DOE laboratories and determine (1) whether differences exist for managerial and professional women and minorities compared with men and Whites in salaries, merit pay increases, separation patterns, and promotion rates; (2) what EEO concerns laboratory women and minorities have raised; and (3) what DOE and OFCCP have done to implement GAO's earlier recommendation.

What GAO Found

For fiscal years 2001 through mid-2004, GAO found some statistically significant differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separation patterns for managerial and professional women and minorities when compared with men and Whites, and differences in promotion rates when compared with White men. These differences remained despite holding constant factors such as age, education, and occupational category. Women were paid 2 to 4 percent less than men at five of the six laboratories, while minorities were paid about 2 percent less than Whites at one laboratory. Merit pay increases were comparable for all groups at three of the six laboratories. At the other three laboratories, merit pay increases were higher for women and minorities at one, higher for women at another, and lower for minorities at the third. Separation patterns for women and minorities were generally comparable to men and Whites. However, at one laboratory, women were more likely to leave than men, and at another laboratory, minorities were more likely to leave than Whites. At one laboratory, selected minority groups were promoted at a rate less than 80 percent of the rate for White men (a "rule of thumb" used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and OFCCP). Statistically significant differences do not prove or disprove discrimination; rather, they provide information at an aggregate level and may indicate a need for further investigation into their practical significance. Concerns of women and minority staff at the laboratories focused primarily on underrepresentation, the lack of career development opportunities, and the need for an improved laboratory work environment. Complaints investigated or resolved within the laboratories varied among the laboratories and included issues such as sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Complaints filed with outside agencies such as EEOC most often cited concerns with pay and terminations. The highest number of external complaints filed dealt with sex or race matters. As a result of GAO's April 2002 recommendation, OFCCP and DOE staff met to discuss the possible creation of a more formal relationship through a memorandum of understanding. While reviewing OFCCP's draft memorandum, the Department of Labor raised questions about DOE's authority and responsibility for EEO matters at the laboratories, and as a result, OFCCP has not sent the draft memorandum to DOE for coordination. OFCCP maintains that Executive Order 11246, as amended, made DOL solely responsible for enforcing federal contractors' compliance with EEO requirements, and this authority has been delegated to OFCCP by DOL. DOE officials agree, but maintain that DOE's requirement for its contractors to promote diversity through diversity plans is independent from OFCCP's jurisdiction. Accordingly, GAO believes that the departments of Labor and of Energy need to clarify and reach agreement about DOE's role concerning its contractors' diversity activities.