Six members of Congress have raised concerns over the planned closure of eight Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) field offices. In a letter sent on March 26 to Andrea Lucas, the newly appointed acting chair of the EEOC, lawmakers urged the agency to reconsider terminating leases for offices in Mobile, Alabama; San Jose, California; Greensboro, North Carolina; El Paso, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; Kansas City, Kansas; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Greenville, South Carolina.
The letter, signed by Representatives Robert “Bobby” Scott, Zoe Lofgren, Shomari Figures, Alma Adams, Yassamin Ansari, and Deborah Ross, emphasized the critical role these offices play. They serve as the primary point of contact for employees and job applicants seeking redress for workplace discrimination, as well as for employers seeking legal compliance guidance. The lawmakers insisted that closing these offices would undermine access to justice and diminish the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission.
A major concern raised in the letter is that Lucas’ decision to close these offices may violate a standing agency order. House Democrats pointed to a directive from January 18, 2006, which prohibits the EEOC from altering the jurisdictional boundaries of its field offices without Commission approval. They argued that making such significant decisions while the agency lacks a quorum is both problematic and contrary to policy.
In response, an EEOC spokesperson stated that Lucas and her team have been in communication with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) regarding the agency’s space requirements. They clarified that the GSA holds all the leases and that the EEOC remains committed to working with them to ensure continued public service. The spokesperson assured that if any office closures occur, proper internal and external approval processes will be followed.
The uncertainty surrounding these potential closures adds to broader concerns about the stability and effectiveness of the EEOC. With an increasing number of discrimination cases and a shifting workplace landscape, lawmakers argue that maintaining accessibility for employees and employers alike should remain a top priority. The coming months will determine whether the EEOC alters its approach or proceeds with the proposed closures, which could have lasting implications for workplace protections nationwide.
