COMMENTS ON TESTIMONY OF RICHARD SEYMOUR, DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT PROJECT, LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW

The Lawyers' Committee notes that EEOC had filed approximately 900 law suits by January, 1977. The total had grown to 1,187 by the end of FY '78 (October 31, 1978). The effort to portray this volume of litigation as a small number of cases is not credible in light of the severe handicap experienced by the Commission (but not by other litigators) in operating in separate litigation centers apart from investigators who prepare cases. This is being resolved effective January 29, 1979 with a plan already drawn for increasing the number of cases of high quality.

The Lawyers' Committee is correct in noting that most EEOC cases are settled. This same high settlement ratio is typical of all law enforcement agencies and Title VII practitioners and directly in keeping with the mandate of Title VII.

The Committee indicates that EEOC tried only 16 cases in FY '78. In fact EEOC tried 31 cases in FY '78. These 31 trials brought the cumulative total to 128 trials. As noted by the General Counsel in his testimony, these figures indicate that even before integration of lawyers with investigators, EEOC is well on the way toward establishing the kind of litigation program that Congress envisioned.

Further, settlements in 1978 alone resulted in the payment of over $24 million to victims of discrimination in compensation for their losses, and in specific affirmative action or injunctive relief in over 60% of the cases designed to eliminate the discriminatory policies and practices.

Much of the discussion of the Commission's lawyers and of its litigation program is dated and does not take into account improvements in recent years. The quality of the litigation program has improved with the experience and specialized training gained by attorneys. When the Office of General Counsel was expanded with the grant of court enforcement authority to EEOC in 1972, many attorneys were hired with little or no litigation experience. The opportunities for EEOC attorneys to gain actual trial experience in the early years after the 1972 amendments was limited because of the time it takes for a Title VII case to progress through the courts to the trial stage. However, over the past several years EEOC attorneys have handled credibly trials in federal district courts. Systematic training of attorneys in evidence, discovery and trial techniques is now standard practice.

OVERSIGHT ON FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY LAWS

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1978

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES,
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Augustus F. Hawkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Hawkins and Weiss.

Staff present: Susan Grayson, staff director; Darryl Fagin, legislative assistant; Carole Schanzer, administrative assistant to subcommittee; Barbara Melhsack, majority associate counsel; and James M. Stephens, minority assistant labor counsel.

Mr. HAWKINS. The Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities of the Committee on Education and Labor is called to order.

The hearing this morning is a continuation of the oversight hearings of the subcommittee on the subject of Federal enforcement of equal employment opportunity laws. We will hear this morning from a number of interest groups with respect to this subject. The first scheduled witness is Mr. Joel G. Contreras, Director of the Employment Litigation, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, San Francisco, Calif.

Mr. Contreras, we are pleased to welcome you before the committee this morning. We recognize the contribution that the fund has made to the work of the subcommittee and I am quite sure that your testimony will be part of that contribution and continuation of the very excellent contribution that the organization has made.

On that note, we welcome you. We have your prepared testimony which, without objection, will be entered into the record in its entirety and you may proceed to deal with it as you so desire. [The prepared testimony of Joel Contreras follows:]

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) welcomes this opportunity to comment on the progress made in equal employment opportunity enforcement before this Committee. MALDEF is a national, non-profit, non-partisan

legal organization established to protect and advance the civil rights of Mexican Americans. Since its formation, MALDEF has actively challenged practices which deny equal employment opportunity to Mexican Americans. The federal courts have recognized that familiar patterns of unlawful employment discrimination have been applied to Mexican Americans as well as other minorities and females. Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 414 U.S. 86 (1973); Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 572 F.2d 657 (9th Cir. 1977), cert denied, (1978);

U.S.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977); United States v. City of Chicago, 549 F.2d

415 (7th Cir. 1977); and Otero v. Mesa Valley School District No. 51, 568 F.2d 1312 (10th Cir. 1977).

MALDEF has dedicated a substantial portion of its

resources and energies to seek legal enforcement of the civil rights statutes to secure equal employment opportunity.

Our organization has had a special concern and relationship with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission through the years. MALDEF in the past has been one of the legal organizations which implemented the EEOC Private Bar program in project locations in the Southwest locations. We have maintained a solid professional relationship during a period when the development of Title VII litigation has been all too slow and difficult to implement.

Reorganization Plan No.. 1 of 1978

MALDEF testified in support of the Reorganization Plan No. 1 because, in our view, it represented the greatest potential for accomplishing the necessary goals. However, we cautioned that only future performance will establish the success of this Proposal. We suggested that timely evaluations

be made to insure that the program is being implemented. The concerns we expressed were shared by numerous other organizations--both private and public--which provided testimony.

This hearing is an essential part of the process we collectively seek to bring us closer to effective enforcement of the equal employment opportunity laws.