Comment on Testimony of Joel G. Contreras, Director, Employment Hispanic representation at EEOC Criticism of the Commission regarding the level of Hispanics in the workforce is misinformed. EEOC has the best record for employment of Hispanics in the federal government. Hispanics are overrepresented at every grade level. The EEOC has 12.7% Hispanics in field offices, which is double their overall percentage in the population. Reference was made to Hispanic representation at grades 15 through 17. The percentage of Hispanics at these grades at EEOC is 8.3%. This compares favorably to all standards, including their percentage in the population (6.8), which is a liberal if inappropriate standards for use in judging the available pool for highly skilled jobs at these high GS grade levels. Despite this record, EEOC used the occasion of the addition of a large number of new positions to insure strong participation of Hispanics at EEOC. A novel plan to nationalize Hispanic participatic in the agency workforce was developed to reflect a 10% goal of Hispanics in each of EEOC's offices. This plan was particularly successful in the hiring of the first 163 new personnel in September, with 20% of the professionals hired of Hispanic origin. An unprecedented effort was made to reach into the Hispanic community by sending top level EEOC Hispanic personnel on a special recruitment effort seeking and encouraging Hispanic applicants for all positions. Office of Systemic Programs The Office of Systemic Programs cannot fairly or accurately be characterized as being in "disarray." So far as we know, MALDEF has had no contact whatever with the Office and may therefore be without an adequate basis to judge it. The Office priority was not the issuance of charges this past year, except in the model offices to experiment with new systemic units. Rather the first priority was necessarily to develop training, targeting models, compliance procedures and technical assistance models for the 22 new systemic units that will begin operations simultaneously on January 29, 1979. Essentially the primary task of the OSP has been to plan and establish from scratch a full-blown field systemic program under conditions which will establish Commission credibility for systemic work in the field where that credibility is now lacking. Responses to Questions 14 and 15 amplify the role of the Office. STATEMENT OF WINN NEWMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATION UNION OF Questions were raised with respect to the failure of the Commission to initiate lawsuits on the issue of comparable worth. It was noted, however, that EEOC had filed several amicus briefs on the issue of comparable worth and has thereby established its position that, with respect to wages paid to male and female employees, the coverage of Title VII is far broader than the provisions of the Equal Pay Act. In order to further amplify and emphasize this position, the Commission has selected and investigated a charge for use as a vehicle for a Commission Decision on the issue of comparable worth. This Decision will be used by the Commission's field offices as a guide for investigating and deciding charges alleging the comparable worth issue and will be published for the benefit of the public. A draft of the Decision is currently being circulated within the Commission for review and comment. If the charge should fail conciliation, the case would be considered for litigation. The Commission also has under scrutiny the processing of other charges now in the charge processing stage so that they may be flagged as possible litigation vehicles at an appropriate time. The Commission has let a contract to the National Academy of Sciences to study certain aspects of this issue so as to gain expertise for the development of standards not available from Commission staff and to enable the Commission to overcome the present hostile climate to this issue in the courts, where all cases brought thus far have been lost. Without laying a firm basis for standards to evaluate wage systems, neither the Commission nor others are likely to improve this poor litigation record. A question was raised concerning the direction of the study which the Commission let to the Academy of Sciences, citing language in the "NAS Committee's First Quarterly Report, June 1978" and the "February 1978 Work Plan". The language which was cited tracked the original contract with NAS. The Commission has never acted to transfer any of its functions or responsibilities to the National Academy of Sciences through the letting of the contract to study comparable worth. The Contract with NAS was signed in September 1977, some months prior to the arrival of the NAS contract project director and the staffing of the project by NAS. The language was broadly drafted so that the findings and recommendations made by the Committee would not in any way be influenced by the terms of the contract. The language proved to be too broad to be practical. The project director and staff at NAS have worked closely with this Commission to define and limit the scope of the Committee's mandate, while remaining independent with respect to the substance of the study. COMMENTS ON TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN BLUNT, ASSOCIATE Of the witnesses who testified, only Women Employed has had systematic experience with the new systems. While WE was generally supportive of the new procedures, some of the comments need response and clarification. WE states that staff sometimes draw up charges too narrowly by ignoring "necessarily class' situations. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund also makes reference to refusal to take class charges. The response to question lla indicates that the The Commission has clearly conveyed to staff WE comments on fact-finding conferences allege numerical imbalance at the conference; that some staff do not seek facts in the conference (only to settle); that there should be developed lists of organizations that can represent charging parties at conferences; that respondents not be allowed to include certain personnel at the conference; that staff receive settlement training, and that there be an appeal procedure for charging parties who feel that they have been denied a fair hearing at the conference. MALDEF is concerned that settlement discussions without prior investigation, places the charging party at a disadvantage. Manual revisions shortly to be submitted to the Commission for approval have been designed to clarify several of the comments about fact-finding, although model office staff have already been apprised of these provisions. The fact-finding conference is an investigative tool designed to get the same information that are retrieved much slower by traditional investigative methods. Manual revisions put further stress on the investigative aspect of the fact-finding conference. Further, the imbalance at the conference table will be greatly reduced through the designation of certain respondent personnel as "witnesses" who attend the conference only to testify as to what happened rather than as "representatives" who attend the conference throughout. Procedures for appealing the results of a fact-finding conference are already provided by virtue of the right of the charging party to ask the District Director to reconsider the determination. In addition, the case, if not settled at fact-finding conference, is always subject to additional investigation, analysis, and supervisory review before a decision is rendered. Finally, the Commission is constantly seeking to improve skills through its new training center and requires that supervisors observe and evaluate fact finders on a regular basis. WE states that charging parties are sometimes pressured to settle charges by threatened "no-cause" findings; MALDEF fears that settlement discussions should not be held without some investigation. In response to the WE statement, fact finders are encouraged to use the facts of a case, in dealing with both parties to facilitate settlement. A charging party may be advised of the possibility of a no-cause finding just as a respondent may be advised that a cause finding might result. All charges are investigated unless a charging party desires to settle before investigation is complete. Finally, as WE points out EEOC believes that referral of all charging parties to organizations who can represent them will only raise expectations which cannot be met. Charging Parties are advised of their right to seek representation. We will develop arrangements with groups such as WE so they can leave their literature in the office. However, automatic referral to groups without adequate resources to serve charging parties would be irresponsible. WE states that the high no-cause rate in the Continued Investigation/ This is highly misleading. Twelve-month figures for the Continued Investigation function in Chicago show that no cause determinations constitute only 32% of closures in this function. The Continued Investigation Unit in Chicago was Unit. |