that administrative results are being achieved, but that the necessary framework for long term success are being neglected. We believe that the important role of this Committee is to obtain the information necessary to evaluate the progress

of the EEOC in the areas MALDEF has outlined. The responsibility charged to the EEOC is one of the highest priorities.

We hope our views will enable them to more effectively channel their resources and efforts to bring about greater results for the minorities and females protected by Title VII, including over ten million persons of Hispanic ancestry in the United States today.

STATEMENT OF JOEL G. CONTRERAS, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. CONTRERAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and the members of the committee for the opportunity for MALDEF to present testimony on what we consider to be a very vital issue in the continued progress toward enforcement of equal employment opportunity statutes.

The subject matter of this testimony-and I would like to just comment generally about the prepared testimony and then answer any particular areas of inquiry that you might have.

There are three areas which we are particularly concerned about since the reorganization plan of 1978 has come into effect for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The first one deals with the investigation responsibilities of the EEOC. Because the Commission is charged with the responsibility for preparing the administrative record we believe that this factor should be carefully analyzed and evaluated by this committee in determining what the record of progress has been.

Not being part of the Government, the information that is available is of somewhat limited value to us in evaluating the progress made as far as investigations. We note that the Commission has provided documents and progress to this committee which speaks in terms of charge resolutions and charges which have been processed. We don't think that is definitive enough for this committee to carefully evaluate the record in terms of investigations.

Our particular interest in this area is simply the fact that much of our work in terms of litigation is predicated on the existence of a sound administrative record which is in fact an investigation.

The present situation, particularly regarding class complaints, is that in many of the district offices the nonmodel district offices, an individual attempting to file a class action charge of discrimination is involved in the offices we have been working with, that the EEOC

is no longer automatically taking charges of class action discrimination. The individual does have the right, if they persist in their desire to file a class action charge, but that the EEOC will then issue a notice of right to sue without an investigation.

The lack of an investigation means that this individual is then going to come to our organization or similar organizations with a private bar, without any knowledge regarding the facts of this charge of discrimination. This places a tremendous burden on the private bar and on the individual seeking to vindicate their equal employment opportunity rates.

Therefore, we strongly urge that this committee take whatever steps possible to obtain specific information regarding the actual number of completed investigations that have been obtained and made in each of the 22 district offices of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We think this is the only method by which the true value of the progress being made in the last year can adequately be evaluated.

Mr. HAWKINS. Would you repeat that statement?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes. We would like to have information regarding the number of completed investigations in each of the 22 district offices during the last year.

Mr. HAWKINS. Are you refering to new charges or backlog cases? Mr. CONTRERAS. We think both are equally important, but the true factor that we are interested in is the number of investigations. The information that is normally reported is that we have processed x number of backlog case charges, we have processed x number of new charges during this period of time.

What we want to know is, how many actual investigations were completed because that forms, as far as our organization is concerned, an accurate method by which we may be able to determine both the quality and the quantity of the work being done administratively.

Now, that is something that the private bar will ultimately have to deal with in terms of someone can come and say, "Here is the determination that the EEOC made, the attorney can then evaluate the facts regarding the basis of that complaint and make a decision. Mr. HAWKINS. Are you breaking this down as to whether or not the charge has a class complaint involvement? In other words, you are stating it as the number of actual investigations made regardless of whether or not they have any relationship at all to class complaints?

Mr. CONTRERAS. If it is possible, we would like that information separately, and we think that the committee should evaluate that carefully because the number of individual complaints-I mean we definitely have a preference for systemic relief.

We recognize the importance for an individual gaining individual relief but we believe the systemic approach is crucial to the enforcement of title VII. Therefore, if that information would be available to this committee, designating

Mr. HAWKINS. We can ask for both. I don't know of any reason why it shouldn't be available.

Mr. CONTRERAS. We would urge that be provided.

Mr. HAWKINS. We will make that specific request. Are you referring only to the nonmodel offices, or both the model and nonmodel offices?

Mr. CONTRERAS. We would think a comparison between the model and nonmodel offices would be quite important to determine what is transpiring in terms of progress during the last year.

With respect to the systemic program, MALDEF understands that the Commission regards the resolution of individual charges to be quite important, particularly with respect to the backlog.

However, it was our understanding initially that the Commission was allocating resources to the resolution of systemic charges of discrimination or identifying these and setting up units to take care of those.

Our perception and the information that we have received in working with the Commission during the past year is that the systemic unit is in fact not operating in the offices we are working with. In fact, they speak in terms of, "Well, some time this next year we will hopefully have something."

We have encountered numerous situations in which individuals seeking to file class action charges of discrimination were told we are going to issue you a notice of right to sue. Some of those individuals requested that it be reviewed at the district level for investigation as a class action charge and they were informed that there was no unit, no review possible therefore, we, on their behalf, urged that Washington review such charges.

We have never received an adequate response in terms of knowing that here is a specific response to your request that this systemic charge or class action charge be reviewed. Therefore, the only conclusion we can come to is at this point the Commission is not able to process the number of requests that they have for class action or systemic discrimination charges. That unit is not functioning the way we would like to see it set up.

Our position is that we understand that there are administrative problems, and setting a new unit up and so forth is going to take some time. However, we urge that the Commission not automatically issue these notices of right to sue and prejudice the rights of these individuals but follow what we would consider to be a position that would maintain their rights until the Commission had the unit set up.

We have not received what I regard to be as an adequate response to that position.

Mr. HAWKINS. Would you be more specific as to the type of response that you have received?

Mr. CONTRERAS. We have received basically information that was directed specifically to the charging parties we have counseled in this area, informing them that here is your notice of right to sue and that was it.

We did not receive any information from Washington that indicated that there was any hope that charges of class action discrimination would be held pending the establishment of the systemic units' capability to review such charges.

Mr. HAWKINS. Were you told that the units were being created and set up and that further efforts would have to be made before

such units could be set up to successfully handle such complaints? Have you been told that much?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Our letter has not specifically been responded to and this was maybe 4 months ago.

Mr. HAWKINS. Do you have a copy of the correspondence in reply to your suggestion along this particular line that the committee could have?

Mr. CONTRERAS. I do not have that with me, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to supply that.

Mr. HAWKINS. Would you supply the committee with the answer you have received with respect to the setting up of these sytemic units or to the filing of the class action charges in the nonmodel offices?

Mr. CONTRERAS. We will be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you.

Mr. CONTRERAS. In sum, what we are advocating, I think, is very simply that the EEOC not prejudice the rights of these individuals seeking class action treatment of their charges, but rather that the EEOC hold those until they do have the administrative capability to review those. We completely understand that at some point the Commission may determine this is not the class action type of case that we believe is proper for our systemic unit to handle, therefore, here is your notice of right to sue.

At this point our concern is that no review is taking place and that these individuals are then forced to go to the private bar without any facts, without any investigation to seek some sort of resolution and vindication of their rights. We just think at some point there has to be a review by the Commission to make that determination.

Mr. HAWKINS. Are we talking about a substantial number of cases or are we talking about a few isolated cases?

Mr. CONTRERAS. It is our information that the EEOC at the district court level in a nonmodel district office was virtually completing no class action charges of investigations; therefore, anyone coming in with a class action charge was almost without exception, there may be a few exceptions, were being told "We are doing individual charges of discrimination, therefore if you come in with a class action charge we don't know when we will be able to investigate it," and if you filed such a charge the odds were quite, quite high that you received notice of right to sue.

Mr. HAWKINS. Approximately how many systemic charges are being filed by Hispanics, let's say, within a year's time? Do you have any idea?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I think the committee will receive more information regarding the EEOC intake procedures.

Our information is that the number of charges has dropped substantially.

The number of Hispanic charges was never very large. I think the closest estimate we could ever receive from the Commission was it was something like 11 percent. The systemic charges would be a smaller number than that.

This reinforces our concern regarding the charges of systemic discrimination.

In other words, each national origin discrimination charge represents to the Hispanic community a limited opportunity for the Commission to carefully evaluate the merits of that charge in terms of reaching the systemic discrimination that we know exists.

The fact that the Commission at this point is not able to process those we think seriously impairs the equal employment opportunities of the Hispanic community, because there just simply is a limited number of those charges.

However, without that information being made available to us, we are unable to gage the exact proportions of this effect, because in the intake procedure the complaints that have returned to us from those interviews basically indicate that there is a very clear indication from the Commission that the individual charge will be faster, it will enable the Commission to complete its investigations in a very rapid time, therefore there is at least inferentially a strong, strong position by the Commission that class action charges are not desired.

I think our clients have reported that and in fact I think we have at least one instance in which members seeking to file class action charges were informed they would need a petition.

Mr. HAWKINS. How do you relate this to the great cry that went up several years ago, including, I suppose, even from the subcommittee, concerning the huge backlog and that we had to do something, that it was disturbing the credibility of the agency and of the law itself; that individuals had filed complaints and nothing had happened for 2 to 3 and sometimes 5 or 6 years. I think a lot of us joined in insisting that something be done to eliminate this backlog. Have we in any way contributed therefore to this emphasis that seems to be being placed on getting rid of the backlog before we clear the deck for getting down to business on really rooting out discrimination?

Mr. CONTRERAS. I think we share that concern. We recognize that not every charge is in fact going to be a class action charge and that the Commission, in its responsibilities, does have an obligation to resolve the individual complaint that might exist.

Our concern at this point is that the Commission in the allocation of its resources and its developments in the model offices as well as the nonmodel offices has seen fit to deemphasize the class action charges to the extent that individuals who may seek investigation and resolution of what they perceive to be a systemic charge of discrimination are not obtaining at any level at this point a review of that charge; in other words, to evaluate it.

We fully recognize that the Commission has to have the capability of saying, "Your charge of discrimination is not a class action or systemic charge of discrimination that the Commission will process."

Our concern is at this point the Commission is simply not looking at the charges to make that determination, but in fact is processing the individual charges in a manner that we hope will resolve the individual charges, but we need to see that corresponding focus and attention being made to the systemic charges, class action charges which we think will form an equally important basis of resolution of those charges.