Page images
PDF
EPUB

class action cases should be followed so that the administrative remedy parallels the judicial one. Congressional oversight should carefully scrutinize the matter in which the EEOC administers the federal EEo program. In particular, it should ensure that the EEOC conducts training programs for agency EEO personnel that will train them fully in Title VII law and emphasize their responsibility to ensure that all personnel actions are in compliance with that law. The training of complaints examiners will be of crucial importance. One of the problems in the existing civil Service Commission system is that complaints examiners are primarily trained in personnel matters, and have, as one of their primary functions, adjudication of such matters as adverse action appeals. Their orientation has not, in the past, been towards EEO and Title VII law. Thus, many of the decisions of complaints examiners demonstrate an inadequate understanding of Title VII law and generally a lack of sympathy with the goals of Title VII. These attitudes can be changed only by rigorous training in the principles of Title VII law to ensure that proper standards are applied in the future. Another crucial issue to be resolved is the scope of jurisdiction of the EEOC. This was a central issue in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and was one of the questions

that separated the House and the Senate. Under the Act, the

Merit System Protection Board is to have jurisdiction over
matters appealable to it. It is not clear, however, all the
matters that were intended to be appealable to the Board.
clearly, adverse actions will be. However, under the present
system challenges based on discrimination to CSc imposed job
requirements, such as examinations, job qualifications, and the
like, are not filed with agencies but are appealed directly to
the csc under 5 C.F.R. Part 300, The Act does not clearly de-
fine which matters presently appealable to the csc will now be
appealable to the MSPB. We believe that issues now within the
scope of Part 300 should come under the jurisdiction of the
EEOC. Otherwise the EEOC will not be able to enforce Title VII
in the most significant area the validity of csc policies.

As a final matter we note that the EEOC is at a critical period. The EEOC is assuming additional enforcement responsibilities while it is attempting, as it must, to improve and develop its procedures. We think that one of the positive functions which the EEOC can perform is to establish a uniform federal equal employment policy. This coordinating function which pursuant to the Reorganization plan is the responsibility of the EEOC must be adequately staffed in order to be carried out effectively.

STATEMENT OF BARRY L. GOLDSTEIN, ASSISTANT GENERAL

COUNSEL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON, FIRST ASSISTANT COUNSEL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Chairman Hawkins, and Representative Weiss. We certainly appreciate the opportunity for the Legal Defense Fund to appear once again before this subcommittee.

My associate is Steve Ralston and if it is OK with the committee, we would like to divide our comments by subject area, and I would like to talk about the private processing and Mr. Ralston about processing with respect to the Federal Government.

Mr. HAWKINS. That is highly satisfactory.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you. We would like to summarize our prepared remarks and also make some comments in line with some of the discussion before this subcommittee this afternoon.

We would also like to point out that we have done a detailed theoretical critique of the new EEOC procedures which we have attached as an appendix to our prepared remarks.

I believe we supplied four copies.

Mr. HAWKINS. The attached documents will be entered in the record also in addition to the prepared testimony, without objection. [Additional material submitted by Barry Goldstein follows:

L.DE

logal

afonso

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. hund 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y.

10019• (212) 586-8397 806 Fifteenth Street, N. W., Suite 940 Washington, D.C. 20006 · (202) 638-3278

28 November 1978

The Honorable Augustus F. Hawkins, Chairman
House Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities

of the Education and Labor Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed are twenty-five copies of the testimony to be
given by the Legal Defense Fund on Wednesday, November 29, 1978.
Also enclosed are four copies of an analysis prepared by the
Legal Defense Fund on February 8, 1978 on the EEOC procedures
which is attached as an appendix to the testimony.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before your subcommittee.

[blocks in formation]

THE NEW EEOC PROCEDURES: SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR COUNSEL

FOR CHARGING PARTIES

(Prepared by: Barry L. Goldstein, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational

Fund, Inc.)

EEOC PROCEDURES

Introduction

The memorandum outlines critical areas in the New EEOC procedures: the filing and drafting of the charge (Section II), investigation, conciliation and settlement of the charge (Section II), dismissal, determination and final processing of the charges (Section IV). These are areas with which the practitioner must be concerned whenever a charging party is counselled. In the past attorneys who represented CPs have frequently ignored the EEOC administrative proceedings; they simply filed the charge and when the time-period had run, they requested a notice of right to sue and proceeded to file a civil action. As is consistently emphasized in this memorandum it 'is essential for attorneys who represent charging parties to carefully monitor and participate in the administrative process. I. The Sources of Title VII Administrative procedure Law

Title VII contains a veritable labyrinth of administrative exhaustion procedures. These procedures, as might be expected, have spurred considerable litigation. Before discussing the EEOC regulations and procedures relating to each area covered in this memorandum the applicable statutory provisions and pertinent case law is described.

Title VII provides that the EEOC "shall have the authority... to issue... procedural regulations to carry out the provisions of this Title".1 Pursuant to this authority the EFOC published new

17 $713(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended 1972), 42 ū.s.c. $2000e-12(a); see 706(b), "charges shall...be in such form as the Commission requires".

regulations on October 14, 1977, 42 F.R. 55388.27 Moreover, the EEOC maintains a compliance Manual 3 which is the "source of policy, procedures, and standards for the enforcement effort of

the Commission".4/

There are two different procedures for processing current charges : (1) for district offices and (2) for the model offices.5/ The procedures for the district offices and the the model offices

are the same except that there are no fact-finding conferences 6/ and there are no systemic program units.7/ In addition, there is a separate program for processing charges in the backlog. This program will use the current EEOC procedures; Chair Norton outlined the plan to the House Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities on Wednesday, July 27, 1977. (Reprinted in Mission, a newsletter

published by the EEOC, Vol. 5, No. 5 at 6.)

27 These regulations are codified at 29 C.F.R. $1601.

3 The EEOC compliance Manual is a public document pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 u.s.c. $522 (a) (2) (c). The manual is available for purchase from Commerce clearing House, Inc. It is also availabe for public inspection in each EEOC district and regional office and in the Commission library in Washington, D.C. 4 EEOC Order No. 915, Prescribing the EEOC compliance Manual (September 23, 1977).

5 There are three model offices established in Baltimore, Chicago and Dallas which are staffed to implement all of the new procedures.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »