The EEOC's August 28, 2026 proposal would replace the current counselor-first, optional pre-decision hearing path with direct filing, a mandatory agency decision, and a targeted hearing only when the Commission refers an appeal. It would also stop administrative class adjudication while preserving putative class assertions for exhaustion and joint processing of identified individual complaints.
None of those changes is current law yet. The source is a proposed rule with comments due September 28, 2026; it has no final-rule effective date. Federal employees and applicants should use the procedures and deadlines actually in force for their matter, not the proposed lane in this map.
The question this map answers
Where does decision authority sit in the current Federal-sector EEO complaint process, where would it move under EEOC's proposal, and which routes would remain available without turning a proposal into an effective rule?
MyMap compared the 2025 annual edition of 29 CFR part 1614 with Federal Register document 2026-17641, published August 28 and observed at 4:08 AM Pacific Time on August 29. The CFR supplies the current lane; the EEOC document supplies the proposed replacement. The Cummings Act is used only for accountability relationships the proposal says it implements.
In this map, current means the reviewed CFR path. Proposed means text on which EEOC is requesting comment, not a legal effect. A final agency decision is the agency's merits or dismissal decision. An appeal is Commission review after that decision. An administrative-judge referral is a scoped appellate proceeding authorized by EEOC; under the proposal it is not a complainant entitlement or a wholesale retrial.
The current lane has a hearing election before final agency action
Current § 1614.105 requires an aggrieved person to contact an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory matter, or the effective date of a personnel action, subject to the regulation's extension grounds. Counseling or an offered alternative dispute resolution process comes before the written complaint. Section 1614.106 then generally requires the complaint within 15 days after receipt of the counselor's notice.
The agency investigates the accepted complaint, ordinarily within 180 days. When it supplies the investigative file, the complainant has 30 days to request an EEOC administrative-judge hearing or an immediate final agency decision. If a hearing is requested, the judge adjudicates and issues a decision; the agency then issues a final order stating whether it will implement that decision and appeals if it will not.
The important relationship is therefore not “EEOC decides every complaint.” Under the current lane, the complainant can elect an administrative-judge path after investigation and before final agency action, or request the agency decision directly. The agency, administrative judge, and Commission occupy different states.
The proposed lane starts with a direct complaint
The proposal would remove and reserve § 1614.105. Mandatory pre-complaint counseling would no longer be a filing prerequisite. Agencies would still have to make pre-complaint technical assistance available, maintain ADR, and make reasonable efforts to resolve matters informally before and after filing.
Proposed § 1614.106 would require a written complaint with the allegedly discriminating agency within 60 days of the matter, the effective date of a personnel action, or the most recent act in an alleged continuing violation. The complaint would need enough factual matter to state a facially plausible claim, but the proposal says technical legal terminology would not be required.
That is a replacement deadline, not an extra 15 days after a new 60-day counseling period. The proposal removes the mandatory counseling gate and creates direct filing. The map therefore shows “45-day counselor contact plus later complaint” in the current lane and “60-day written complaint” in the proposed lane without adding the two systems together.
Investigation would feed one ordinary agency decision
After accepting a proposed-lane complaint, the agency would remain responsible for an impartial and appropriate investigation. The general proposed deadline is 135 days from filing, but an introductory 180-day period would run until January 1, 2028. The parties could agree in writing to an extension of no more than 90 days, and the agency could add up to 30 days when protected information must be sanitized and notice is given.
After receiving the investigative file, both sides would have 15 days to submit additional evidence. The record would then close, and the agency would have 30 days to issue its final agency decision. That decision would address accepted claims under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, explain discrimination or no-discrimination findings, provide relief when warranted, and notify the complainant of appeal and civil-action rights.
MyMap derives a five-state proposed sequence: direct complaint, investigation, record close, final agency decision, and appeal or court path. It does not collapse extensions into a promised completion date. A case can also be dismissed, supplemented, delayed with notice, settled, or moved to court under governing law.
Hearings would remain, but as a scoped appellate tool
The proposal would remove the complainant's automatic option to request an administrative-judge hearing before the agency decision. A complainant could appeal that decision to the Commission within the proposed 30-day period and request administrative-judge proceedings, explaining why they are necessary or efficient. The agency could also request a referral, but that request would not be its own appeal and would not change the finality of its decision.
The Commission would review the agency decision de novo. It could affirm, reverse, modify, supplement the record, remand, or refer specified issues to an administrative judge. Referral grounds include unresolved material fact or credibility disputes, an incomplete record better supplemented through targeted proceedings, complex issues, or remedial questions.
If referred, the administrative judge could conduct limited discovery or a hearing within EEOC's referral order and return recommended findings or a report. The Commission—not the administrative judge—would issue the final appellate decision and could adopt, change, or reject the recommendation. The proposal also allows agencies with a compelling need and reliable existing infrastructure to petition EEOC for a rare internal hearing process. That exception should not be redrawn as a general agency option.
Class allegations and joint processing split into different edges
Current part 1614 includes administrative class-complaint procedures. The proposal would prohibit certification, notice, settlement approval, class-wide decisions, and relief for absent persons inside this administrative process.
It would still let an identified complainant assert a putative class claim in writing for administrative-exhaustion purposes. It would also let two or more identified complainants request joint processing of substantially similar allegations or the same policy, practice, action, or matter. Each complaint would remain individual, each complainant would have to satisfy the applicable requirements, and findings or relief would be person- and claim-specific.
The proposal expressly leaves later courts to decide certification, tolling, and whether exhaustion is satisfied. “No administrative class complaint” therefore does not mean “no class allegation can ever reach court,” while “joint processing” does not create a class.
Confirmed, derived, and still unknown
The current CFR confirms mandatory counselor contact, the 45-day contact period, the later written-complaint deadline, agency investigation, the current hearing election, and final-action structure. The proposed rule confirms direct filing within 60 days, the introductory and later investigation periods, the evidence and decision windows, Commission-controlled administrative-judge referrals, individual-only administrative adjudication, and the September 28 comment deadline. The proposal also confirms that ADR, Commission appeal, remedies, compliance procedures, and civil-action rights would remain.
MyMap derives the before/proposed state comparison, the placement of decision authority, and the three boundaries labeled “filing gate,” “decision gate,” and “referral gate.” Those labels explain the procedural change; they are not statutory terms or predictions about case outcomes.
The sources leave unknown whether EEOC will issue a final rule, which provisions or deadlines may change after comments, the effective date and transition treatment for pending matters, how often the Commission would refer appeals, which agencies might receive internal-hearing approval, how courts would treat putative class assertions, and how the new model would affect outcomes or duration in practice.
Reproducible mapping method and next step
Build one row per procedural state and record its actor, trigger, deadline, output, next permitted states, source section, and status as “current” or “proposed.” Draw a solid edge only when the source authorizes the transition. Draw discretionary referral, remand, ADR, and civil-action paths separately; do not force them into the ordinary sequence.
For an actual matter, first verify the rule and agency instructions in force on the relevant date. For policy review, submit comments by September 28 using the Federal Register docket instructions and identify which proposed relationship or deadline the comment addresses. After the comment period, monitor for a final rule and transition provisions. Until a final rule becomes effective, the proposed 60-day direct-filing lane is analysis—not a filing instruction or legal advice.