WASHINGTON, D.C. -

The same methodology utilized by the federal agency to levy enforcement actions against vehicle financing companies might be what could be used against the regulator, as well.

A trio of Republican House members gave the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until Thursday to provide answers and other details to 14 different questions all stemming from recent reports of potential racial disparities in how bureau employees are treated.

Lawmakers sent the demand letter to CFPB director Richard Cordray in response to a story published last week by American Banker that cited confidential bureau documents and unnamed sources that revealed data showing that the agency’s white employees had a greater likelihood of receiving the highest rating in performance evaluations — which determine salary increases and bonuses — than minorities.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Republican from Texas who is the House Financial Services Committee chairman, authored the letter that also was signed by two fellow House members, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina.

Along with concerns stemming from the published report, these lawmakers raised questions to the CFPB in response to the most recent No Fear Act disclosure released by the bureau for the period ending Dec. 31. That disclosure revealed a number of formal discrimination claims filed by bureau employees against the agency on the basis of race, age, religion, sex, disability and national origin.

The representatives also noted concerns about the bureau stemming from its 2013 annual employee survey that indicated fewer than half of agency employees are satisfied with the policies and practices of senior leaders, that fewer than half of bureau employees agree that promotions and pay raises at the bureau are based on merit, and that fewer than three in five employees agree that they understood what they had to do to be rated at different performance levels based on their most recent performance appraisals.

Furthermore, the lawmakers goes on to mention problems identified by the bureau’s employee union, including the need for fair and transparent performance appraisals as an area of focus for ongoing bargaining between the union and the bureau.

Among the specific 14 requests, the letter asks for:

—Records depicting the aggregate number of employees receiving a rating within each category of the bureau’s five-point performance rating scale.

—Records depicting the distribution of employee performance ratings by any demographic factor/

—The number of complaints, whether formal or informal, filed by bureau employees with the agency’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

—The number of employee grievances that the bureau has denied and the number of employee grievances that the Bureau has denied without providing written justification for its denial.

In an opinion piece published on Sunday in the Wall Street Journal, former CFPB official Ronald Rubin traveled on the same questioning track as the Republican lawmakers who are seeking more information from the bureau.

“It seems inconceivable that CFPB’s management could be discriminating against its workers. But disparate-impact statistics equal discrimination. Or at least that’s what the CFPB tells the businesses it regulates,” Rubin wrote in the column posted here.

While with the regulator, Rubin drafted the CFPB’s enforcement action process, which governs how enforcement collaborates with other components of the bureau prior to taking steps such as opening investigations, issuing civil investigative demands, and suing suspected law violators.

Rubin closed his piece in the Wall Street Journal by stating, “Are the CFPB’s managers discriminating based on race, despite the agency's best intentions? Were the statistical disparities caused by cronyism, elitism or some other problem? A thorough inquiry should be conducted, and CFPB director Richard Cordray has already ordered one. The more important question is whether the bureau will reconsider its commitment to the disparate-impact doctrine after witnessing its flaws firsthand.”