As I look back over the years of my experience with the Civil Service Commission on the matter of employment discrimination, the nearest comparison to it is the old British colonial system. There are many provisions for handling complaints but most of those who handle the actual process are white people, who are extremely skillful in short circuiting the promised remedies contained in the Executive Orders on this subject, and who somehow manage to get the top positions even though the Negroes who are brought into the agencies on a kind of token basis may know more about the subject. Section 717 of your bill is of vital importance. It is my opinion that the Congress owes this provision to the millions of black citizens of this country who have looked to the Civil Service Commission in vain for assistance in combatting racial discrimination in Government employ ment. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE MITCHELL, Director, Washington Bureau. 28 1. Structure of the Equal Employment Opportunity Office In conjunction with the restructured operation, Nicholas J. Oganovic, CSC's Executive Director (Level V of the Executive Schedule), was named Coordinator of Federal Equal Employment Opportunity, reporting directly to the Commissioners. Two high level staff positions, Director of Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (Communications) and Director of Equal Employment Opportunity (Operations), were located immediately below the Coordinator. These roles were respectively occupied by James Frazier, Jr., (GS-15) and Irving Kator, (GS-16). The former was made responsible for "coordinating operations with minority group organizations and with other Federal agencies having civil rights responsibilities"; the latter, responsible for program operations and activities within the Commission and in Federal agencies as well." As of October 1969, a sixteen-member staff was projected for the newly created equal employment opportunity office. On November 18, 1969, CSC Chairman Robert Hampton announced the designation of CSC's 10 Regional Directors as Coordinators for the Equal Employment Opportunity program in their respective areas. Subsequently, a new midlevel position of Equal Employment Opportunity Representative was created within each of CSC's regional offices. 40 *** Approximately 2,100 appeals of all kinds were considered in 1969.127 The bulk of these concerned adverse actions and retirement issues. There were 336 EEO appeals.128 Two-hundred and eighty cases of these 336 were decided on their merits; the rest were either remanded to agencies for further processing or disposed of for technical reasons.' 129 Of the 280 cases decided on the merits, in 214 instances (more than 75 percent) a decision of "no discrimination" was rendered; in the other 66 cases, corrective action by the agency or CSC was ordered.1 130 William P. Berzak, BAR Chairman expressed the view that because dis The office originally called the “Office of Coordination of Equal Employment Opportunity." is now the "Office of Federal Equal Employment Opportunity." 39 CSC News Release, Aug. 25, 1969. On May 21, 1970, CSC announced a further reorganization of its civil rights office. Mr. Frazier was promoted to a GS-16 and named as the sole Director of the Office of Federal Equal Employment Opportunity. He will assume all of the duties of the Office which had previously been shared with Mr. Kator and will continue to report directly to Mr. Oganovic. Mr. Kator was named Assistant Executive Director and will work with Mr. Oganovic on a variety of special assignments not necessarily relating to civil rights. Civil Service Commission News Release, May 21, 1970. 40 Civil Service Commission News Release, Nov. 18, 1969. 17 Interview with William P. Berzak, Chairman, Board of Appeals and Review, Nov. 5, 1969. 1 More than two-thirds involved allegations of discrimination based on race or color: the remainder were based on national origin, sex or religion. ("Statistics on EEO Appeals to the Board of Appeals and Review for fiscal years 1967, 1968 and 1969"-unpublished tables, 1 Although hearings are not held before the Board, the Board is not restricted to the information in the record. In about 25% of the cases, it goes back to the agency for more documents, statistics, etc., in order to determine the past practices of the accused official with reference to his treatment of persons of the minority groups involved in the case. The complainant may also submit further arguments to the Appeals Board but these must be in writing. Oral argument by counsel is not permitted at this stage. Berzak interview, supra, note 127. 130 In many of these cases the allegation of discrimination was not adequately substantiated but remedial action was warranted. In almost every instance remedial action was predicated on the basis of poor personnel practice and/or some type of unfair or unduly harsh action. It should be noted that only cases which the complainant has "lost" at the agency level are brought to BAR's attention. Cases of blatant discrimination generally are resolved within the agency and fail to reach BAR's attention. The agency has three opportunities to correct a situation or find discrimination before the case ever reaches the Board. i.e., (a) during the EEO Counselor's inquiry: (b) after investigation; and (c) at time of agency's final decision. Thus if there is a case of apparent discrimination, it would be disclosed at one of these three stages. crimination can only be proved in a small number of cases, there is a serious credibility gap between minority groups and the Federal establishment." 131 Mr. DENT. The next witness is Mr. Warren Anderson, director of the Black Committee, Maywood, Ill. STATEMENT OF WARREN ANDERSON, THE BLACK COMMITTEE, MAYWOOD, ILL.; ACCOMPANIED BY RUTH NORDENBROOK BARNES, ATTORNEY, COOK COUNTY LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION Mr. STEIGER. I just want to tell Mr. Anderson that I have read his statement and I apologize for having to leave before you give the statement, so I can't ask you any questions. Mr. ANDERSON. I am available any time, sir. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, I would like to present a statement in support of House bill H.R. 1746. My name is Warren M. "Black Mac" Anderson and I am the director of the Black Committee (C.T.V.E.). We function to end racism in Federal employment. The Black Committee for the past 6 years has been grappling with the problem of white racism at Hines Hospital. Specifically the Black Committee has been processing grievances and complaints and representing black employees, who feel that they have been the victims of racial discrimination, in discrimination hearings before the Veterans' Administration and the U.S. Civil Service Commission. In addition, the Black Committee has filed several appeals before the Board of Appeals and Review, U.S. Civil Service Commission, and complaint No. 8508 with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In complaint No. 8508, we cite 16 areas where white racism exists at Hines Hospital. The incidents of racial discrimination at Hines Hospital are numerous-discrimination in hiring, in promotion, in the treatment of black employees, and in the treatment of black veterans who come to the hospital for medical care. For example, a black registered nurse applying for a position at Hines Hospital was interviewed and accepted for employment but at a salary which was substandard in relation to her qualifications. Approximately 1 week later this nurse applied and was employed at the higher, intermediate grade and salary at another veterans hospital. In another situation a black college graduate was passed over for promotion while a white man, who testified under oath that he had no college training, was given the position in question. The white man entered the Veterans' Administration with a rating of GS-9 while the black man was relegated to a GS-5. There is also a case where a black employee with two masters degrees and a bachelors degree was relegated to a position of GS-7. In yet another case a black employee applied for a promotion and was denied. A complaint was filed and a hearing held on the issue of whether the black man's qualifications were even considered. The 131 Berzak indicated that discrimination cases reaching BAR are never clear cut. Generally. questionable or downright poor personnel practices are part of the picture. When an agency finds a poor personnel practice and corrects it by offering the appellant what he wants, the agency in such cases often does not make inquiry into the past practices of the accused official to determine whether discrimination was present. However, the Board does make such inquiry if the case is appealed to it. Berzak interview, supra note 127. hearing indicated that they were not and the hearing officer ruled for the employee recommending a lateral transfer which would have given the black employee a salary comparable to the one which was an incident of the position which he had been denied. Despite the recommendation of the hearing officer the man was not promoted; he was informed that the hospital was not bound by the recommendation of the hearing officer. In general, the hearing process for complaints of discrimination by employees at VA Hines is deficient in that it does not in any way come to terms with the real patterns of racial discrimination within the hospital. Complaints are heard and considered on a quasi-judicial basis, pitting the individual employees against the hospital administrators with regard to some narrow issue of specific misconduct or action by the hospital's administrative staff. Complaints directed at the larger pattern of discrimination are sent back to the employees with the admonition that such questions can only be raised in the context of an individual case. In reality, the issue of whether the hospital does, in fact, foster and support a policy of racial discrimination toward black employees is never considered. The Board of Appeals and Review of the U.S. Civil Service Commission-the tribunal of last resort for a Government employee will not consider patterns of behavior on the part of the hospital. It is precisely these patterns of behavior which constitute the essence of discrimination. The facts of each individual's complaint taken alone may not provide conclusive proof of discrimination by the hospital administrators and of other separate but similar discriminatory actions by staff members is not allowed in evidence on the grounds that such information is irrelevant. That information may not be directly related to the narrow facts at hand but it cannot be irrelevant to the larger issue of discrimination. For the Federal employee there is no forum to entertain the larger issues. The U.S. Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals and Review is a sham remedy offering no real redress for employee grievances even if an employee can meet the substantial burden of showing that the specific action by the hospital was racially motivated. Only the most blatant violations of a black employee's right to be treated in the same manner as a white employee results in a positive finding by the Commission and even in these cases there is no assurance that a finding of discrimination by the Board will ever result in corrective action by the hospital administration. For these reasons, the black committee strongly supports section 717 of House bill 1746. The transfer of responsibility for hearing the appeals of Government employees charging racial discrimination from the Board of Appeals and Review of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is absolutely essential. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in turn, must be given the power to issue cease-and-desist orders so that a finding of discrimination can and will result in proper remedial action. Also the EEOC must be given the support to investigate patterns and practices of discrimination including patterns on the part of the Federal Government. Finally, Government employees must be given access to the Federal courts so that discriminatory action by the Government will stand no longer as a wrong without a remedy behind the veil of sovereign immunity. To leave the adjudication of employee discrimination complaints in the hands of the U.S. Civil Service Commission is to commit black people to another 40 years of slavery at the hands of the Federal Government. I am referring to the Veterans' Administration being in existence for 40 years. On January 18, 1971, representatives of the black committee visited Washington, bringing with them, again, complaint No. 8508 and its 16 charges of racial discrimination. That complaint has been included as an appendix to this statement. (The complaint follows:) BLACK EMPLOYEES EXPOSE WHITE RACISM AT HINES HOSPITAL Exhibit #1, Report To Executive Board Chairman, Labor Committee, January 15, 1970. Exhibit #13, Minutes Of EEOC Meeting, Edward Hines Jr., Veterans Administration Hospital, November 27, 1967. Exhibit #14, Re: Case Of Estelle Worthy, Letter To Dr. Schlesinger, December 5, 1964. Exhibit #15, Re: Case of Willie B. Smith, Letter To VA Central Office, March 5. 1969. Exhibit #16, Statement, Mr. Lloyd Milton, March 10, 1967. Exhibit #20, Unfair Employment Practice, Mrs. Ruby L. Williams, October 31. 1968. Exhibit #21, To U.S. Department of Labor, Mr. Samuel Williams, November 19, 1968. Exhibit #22, Affidavit, Mr. Augusts P. Jackson, January 14, 1969. Exhibit #29, To U.S. Civil Service Commission, Mr. Willie R. Hrobowski, July 16, 1969. Exhibit #30, Complaint Of Discrimination, Mr. Willie R. Hrobowski, June 19. 1969. Exhibit #31, Complaint Of Discrimination, Mrs. Tranquilar Kendrick, November 6, 1968. Exhibit #32, Complaint Of Discrimination, Mr. Thomas R. Smith, November 4, 1968. Exhibit #33, To Board Of Appeals And Review, Mrs. Carrie James, September 12. 1968. Exhibit #34, Request To Congressional Committee, January 16, 1969. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Maywood, Ill., January 15, 1970. Report To Executive Board. Re Racism-Edward Hines Jr., Veterans Administration Hospital. Since our meeting with the Regional Director, Mr. Sid Finley, concerning the matter of racial discrimination as pertains to all aspects of employment at Hines, Hospital (also Research VA, Hospital); The Black Committee has compiled a list of witnesses and prepared an outline, herewith submitted, which will serve to enlighten interested parties and elected officials as regards the exploitation of Black citizens as well as the deplorable and disgusting conditions presently existing at these Federal Installations. I am certain the Black Committee can prove : (Have made some omissions in order to make and put more meat into Report To General Counsel). That Hines, Hospital does not practice a policy of equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons. Whites with high school education are placed in positions above and earn substantially more than Black Americans with some college or with college degrees. t That dual and even triple personnel files are maintained on Black Americans employed at Hines Hospital. One for the employee to view according to regulations, the other two contain racists garbage and lies to hinder employees toward promotions or transferring to another hospital. That when Black employees attempt to follow established procedures for fileing grievances and or complaints of racial discrimination; bigoted supervisors and officials slant, distort and omit information given by Black employees in this regard. Dr. Schlesinger's administration consistently refuses to investigate, objectively and impartially, complaints against white supervisors and officials. That Dr. Schlesinger's administration takes reprisals, harasses, intimidates and even terminates Black employees that demand respect, file complaints or testify in a hearing exposing conditions at Hines. That Black Americans as a rule are promoted in accordance with the "house nigger" tradition from the days of slavery. Promotions depend on a Black employees willingness to wash his supervisor's windows after duty hours or to clean Lucille Hall's garage during duty hours while ignoring unforgiveable affronts to human dignity. Merit, education, experience, count zero. That to satisfy the self-seeking motives of bigoted supervisors and officials, Black employees are intimidated and pressured to resign (for alleged infractions that are not even documented when committed by whites) while such threats that if they don't resign, no other government agency will consider them for employment. Whites that commit overt acts of racism against Black Americans at Hines, Hospital are promoted by the agency or by VA Central Office, or no action is taken against them at all. In some instances they are provided jobs with other agencies subsidized or entirely managed with federal funds . . . i.e. . . . Falsify government memorandums, sworn affidavits or other government documents . slant investigation of grievance or discrimination complaint. . . falsify medical records... etc., etc. That Black employees discharged from Hines Hospital for alledged infractions of rules are denied employment with other government agencies and many private companies for life. That Black employees injured on duty are treated like cattle. They are not informed of their rights. Hines often refuses to provide medical attention for such injuries. When attention is given, if injury is not obvious. Black employees are not informed of their condition. Doctors falsify medical records to accommodate the motives of bigoted supervisors and officials. That it is the policy of Hines' Administration to intimidate handicapped Black Americans to resign and to attempt to force them into retirement prematurely. Jobs are provided for white handicapped. That Ruth Wilson, Chief, Nursing Service, is and has been a Chief Nurse for whites only. She has teamed up with Charles Story and other bigoted supervisors and officials in their vendetta against certain Black employees. She is obstinate in refusing to investigate nurses who are obviously bias. She abuses her authority arbitrarily, capriciously and dogmatically. She should be removed. That Charles Story, Chief, Employees Relations, has consistently testified falsely under oath and submitted erroneous sworn affidavits and reports of contact. And much much more, but he remains Chief, Employee Relations. He should be in jail. That J. P. Kelley, Assistant Director, cooperating in answering the leading questions of Charles Story, did testify falsely under oath against an employee in a Civil Service hearing. The employee was discharged. J. P. Kelley remains as Assistant Director, Hines Hospital. (Pages 368, 369, 381, 382) That Dr. Lee H. Schlesinger, Director, testified falsely under oath and evaded questions in a Veterans Administration hearing on October 29, 1969. He has also refused to investigate or have investigated matters of nonfeasance and or malfeasance, involving white supervisors and officials, that were reported to him. |