2-year statute of limitations, 2 years from the time a complaint is filed. Speaking of the Fair Labor Standards Act, well when that law was passed in the 1930's, there was opposition, and then the opposition waned. Yet that law is enforced in the courts and there are very few cases litigated in the courts, because that is an effective way of enforcing the law.

Insofar as the problem of class actions, the problem is perhaps difficult to perceive, because it is a very special problem in the area of EEOC which is not true in the class action problem generally.

Class actions are engrafted upon this area through the Federal rules, through rule 23. Under that rule, a person simply comes in and files for the class.

A typical class in this area, assuming we are talking about that section of the law which prohibits discrimination against blacks would be the black person, and it could be class of all black applicants, for example.

All that would have happened in the way these things work and have been working lately, is that two discriminatees file a charge, the EEOC finds reasonable cause, and the conciliation fails.

At that point, the individuals file their district court actions. That can be 2 or 3 years later under the act.

Their back pay is running all that time, but under EEOC's view it is running from 1964.

In 1970, that is enlarged to all the applicants who are black who did not get jobs. The courts have so held. There is a case involving the Sardis Luggage Co.

I call attention to that because the problem is that the court says it is an appropriate class for injunctive relief, and then goes on to say that you have to litigate each claim. If there are 1,000 employees in the class, the employer must litigate each of those claims, at a time when the liability would run back to 1964.

So the potential liability may be considerable at that point, yet the employer might have done no more than discriminate against two people who filed the charge.

The employer or a union has no choice but to try to resolve that matter at the earlier time. There is a better way than to try to use that blackjack. That was the same kind of blackjack approach contemplated when the Congress passed the Taft-Hartley to stop blackmail picketing by labor organizations.

The solution we submit in the bill is to require as a matter of jurisdiction that each person who claims discrimination first be passed on by the EEOC.

We support the district court approach and the EEOC would be the investigator.

It seems to me that every individual before his action ripens into a class action or before he can join as a member of the class should have to present his case to the EEOC.

The advantage of that is that in this reasonable cause procedure, the employer then has an opportunity to present his side.

The aggrieved party really can come forward, because in most of these situations he is aggrieved, and members of the class are not even aware they are a member, and they may not have a claim.

But now no one can tamper with the class; you can't even go out and check into it. You have to work out a dollar settlement figure.

I think it would be a reasonable approach to first require that the EEOC act in a preemptive fashion as in this whole recommended bill we have so designed it to do, to give the public interest the greatest power, and that the EEOC first look at these matters.

I will stop here. There are other technical provisions within the language relating to when action can be brought, but they are designed to speed the process and bring about equal employment opportunity at the fastest time, recognizing that there is an inherent fairness in the process and the opportunities for the employer community or whoever is responding, to engage in self-help at the earliest time so that these cases don't drag on interminably.

I do submit, Congressman Hawkins, that we do have an affirmative proposal and I do request that proposal be made part of the record. Mr. HAWKINS. Without objection, so ordered. The bill and analysis will be inserted into the record preceding your explanatory remarks. Mr. SMETNA. Thank you.

Mr. HAWKINS. I appreciate your coming forward to present your views, even though I disagree with some of them. I think many of them are very constructive.

Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank both of the witnesses. I guess it is rather obvious that these hearings have dragged on rather long already, and most of us have not had lunch yet.

I think this committee should give some thought to the problem of class actions, which is not, I would hasten to point out, something that we have turned our attention to. It is a method of relief that has grown out of the Civil Rights Act, and also as a result of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The problem that I discussed with the Chairman of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the lack of a statute of limitations, something which has been found to be fair in almost every other situation, as I pointed out yesterday in personal injury or property damage claims or almost any other kind of claim I have tried to enforce through the courts, either in the law or equity side-all have a limitation through a statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches.

It would seem to me there is no reason why the same sort of approach should not be used in the case of these back pay claims and class actions, which, unfortunately, at the present time, do not have any sort of limitations.

I just can't buy Chairman Brown's position that in the year 2050 a claim can run back to 1964, and I think that Congress should turn its attention to this problem, among the others that have been raised by the witness.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you.

I wish to thank both of you for your testimony. I am sorry that we delayed it as long as we did.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. John White, I am sorry, but the time has run much longer than I had thought. You wanted to be scheduled as a witness, but if you desire to submit a statement, we will be very glad to put the statement in the record at this point, and also, if you wish to testify, we will have possibly some additional hearings. If you check

with Mr. Dent, or with my office, we can possibly schedule you at the next hearing.

Mr. JOHN WHITE. On the same bill?

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, on the same bill.

Mr. JOHN WHITE. Thank you very much.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you.

The committee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned subject to call of the Chair.)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ENFORCEMENT

PROCEDURES

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to call in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Representative John H. Dent presiding.

Present: Representatives Dent, Hawkins, Clay, Mazzoli, Pucinski, Bell, Landgrebe, Erlenborn, Steiger, and Kemp.

Staff members present: S. G. Lippman, special counsel, and Michael Bernstein, minority counsel.

Mr. DENT. The Subcommittee on General Labor will now come to order for the purpose of holding hearings on H.R. 1746 and other related bills to promote equal employment opportunity for American

workers.

The first witness this morning is the Honorable Bella S. Abzug a Member of Congress from the State of New York,

Mrs. Abzug, kindly proceed in any fashion you wish.

STATEMENT OF HON. BELLA S. ABZUG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mrs. ABZUG. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee.

I beg your indulgence. I will try to stay as long as I can, but I have my own subcommittee hearing this morning and I would like to read my testimony and ask to be excused soon thereafter.

Mr. Chairman, and members of this subcommittee, I am pleased to be here to testify on H.R. 1746, a bill to further promote equal employment opportunities for American workers.

Let me begin by telling you the perspective from which I approach this problem. I am the Representaive of the 19th Congressional District in Manhattan, which is a tremendously diverse district, with large numbers of Puerto Ricans, Chinese, blacks, and other minorities which are tremendously discriminated against. My district also includes large numbers of women-black women, white women, Puerto Rican women, Chinese women, and all workingwomen-all of whom are together in the struggle for equality in employment. I am also concerned with the struggles of women and minorities generally in this country.