together with a decision that fully analyzes the law and facts on 19 such matters in a single year.

I might say in response to one of your questions that the average lawyer carried one matter as his or her responsibility in a year. As I mentioned, many of our decrees contained affirmative action provisions. The affirmative action will take place over a period of months or years; and we must monitor those cases to assure that the defendant company or union in fact complies with the decree. We have expended special efforts to carefully monitor our decrees because compliance with them is the payoff for all of our earlier efforts. We have generally found that companies and unions abide by the reponsibilities imposed by the decrees. Nevertheless, we found it necessary to seek court sanctions for noncompliance in 11 cases last year; and we have found it necessary to seek sanctions in 79 cases since 1972.

I find it difficult to project the scale of our litigation activity for the coming year. As you know, we will shortly be going through a major reorganization under which the lawyers will be reassigned from regional litigation offices and assigned to district offices. The pending cases will also be reassigned from the litigation offices to district offices. While we are doing everything possible to minimize the disruption, the reorganization will make it difficult to maintain the pace of our activities.

I would like to read a footnote which I prepared on this point. As part of its reorganization plan, the Commission decided to abolish the five existing regional offices of general counsel (frequently referred to as the litigation centers) and to merge the administrative charge processing and legal functions in one office. The three model offices now have legal units, and each of the district offices, after reorganization is completed on January 29, 1979, will have legal units. Past oversight reviews, investigations, and evaluations of EEOC have recommended in varying degrees greater integration or greater input of the legal staff into the investigations of charges of discrimination. The rationale and the objective which the Commission seeks to accomplish by abolishing litigation offices and placing its legal staff in district offices is greater input of attorneys into the investigation of charges of discrimination so that cases which fail conciliation are litigation worthy.

While the objective behind integration of the administrative and legal staff is a good one, it would be less than candid to suggest that the changes necessitated by the reorganization have not created some difficult problems which we believe will be short-termed. These problems include:

(1) Loss over the past year of some of our experienced legal staff due to uncertainty as to the effect of reduction in force on their present position, status and location. Additionally, because of agreements with the union, vacancies created by resignations could only be filled by temporary appointments pending completion of reorganization. This, of course, had some effect on the legal staff that we have been able to attract over the past year; and

(2) The transfer of the legal functions to the 22 district offices will necessitate the transfer and reassignment of some cases to attorneys

who are either inexperienced or unfamiliar with the respective cases. While the Commission and the Office of General Counsel will take every step to assure that the impact of such transfers is minimized (for example, training, continuation of cases with attorneys were possible and close supervisory attention), the disruption of the transfer, the additional time necessary for new attorneys to become familiar with the cases, and the likelihood that many of our attorneys will be inexperienced in title VII litigation may slow the pace of the litigation process.

However, I believe that we will be able to file an additional 200 cases, conclude trial in an additional 30 or more, and settle approximately 130 title VII cases. As you know, we will be receiving responsibility for litigating cases concerning age discrimination and violations of the Equal Pay Act in July of next year. I am not in a position to make specific projections concerning that work; but we have begun working with Department of Labor officials to assure a smooth transfer of pending cases and responsibility for enforcing the Acts. I am confident that we will be able to maintain the present enforcement rate within a short time after the transfer date.

Before leaving the area of our litigation program, I would like to call your attention to some of the cumulative figures concerning that program. Since 1972, we have filed over 1,187 lawsuits. We have obtained in excess of $100 million in back pay. We have obtained specific affirmative action undertakings from hundreds of companies and unions for the benefit of many thousands of women and minority employees. While much remains to be done, I believe that we are well on our way toward establishing the kind of litigation program which the Congress and this subcommittee envisioned at the time the act was passed.

As house counsel for the Commission, the Legal Counsel Division advises the Commission and its operating divisions and field offices, members of the public, Members of Congress, and governmental entities, with respect to the legal aspects of questions of administration, interpretation and enforcement of title VII, the Freedom of Information Act, the Sunshine Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, Federal contract law, Federal conflict of interest law, applicable executive orders, and other Federal laws applicable to the Commission's operations.

In addition, pursuant to the transfer of functions to the Commission under Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the division is advising on matters pertaining to the coordination of Federal equal employment opportunity enforcement programs, and to section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (employment discrimination complaints by federal employees), the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The division also represents the Commission in all litigation in which it is a defendant and in all administrative proceedings arising from administrative complaints filed against the Commission. The division provides special counsel to intra- and interagency task forces to resolve legal problems of mutual interest, and carries out other special projects, including preparation of statutorily required agency reports.

There is a table, which I won't read, which indicates the casework and takes up the time of the people in this division.

The Appellate Division has the responsibility of representing the Commission in matters before the appellate courts. [The Solicitor General officially represents Government in title VII cases before Supreme Court, but we act in advisory capacity in such cases.] The basic functions involved in carrying out this responsibility entail the preparation, filing and arguing of legal briefs in the appellate courts.

In addition to handling all Commission appeals, the division is involved extensively as amicus curiae in private lawsuits which we believe raise significant issues in the area of title VII. Over the years this aspect of our appellate work has been noteworthy in assisting the courts in the consistent interpretation and application of title VII as mandated by Congress.

Again, the figures are set forth as to workload in the Appellate Division. I will just briefly comment on the National Program Charges.

These charges were initiated in 1973 by then Chairman Brown signing national charges against four of America's largest and best known companies and one of the larger unions. In September of 1976 the Commission asked me to take charge of these cases and what I feel is significant progress has been made with them.

One of the cases has been settled with important changes in many facets of the company's employment policies resulting, together with a total of approximately $32 million for remedial relief.

In another case a cause decision has been issued by the Commission and we are involved in conciliation now. I anticipate that in the immediate future the case will either be settled or conciliation will fail and suit will be filed.

In a third case, while a cause decision has not been issued it is prepared and will go to the Commission forthwith if the very intensive and encouraging settlement discussions which we are now engaged in fail. I do not anticipate their failing and I am hopeful that it will be settled shortly, but if they should fail and cause found, there is little likelihood of the subsequent conciliation being successful because all of the issues will have been fully explored in our present settlement negotiations. Therefore, suit would be filed shortly after cause was found. However, I repeat, I am optimistic that the case will settle.

In the other two cases, the progress has been slower. In one, a combination of a limited investigation and an unfortunate turnover of personnel assigned to the case has caused interminable delay up to now; and in the other procedural litigation had prevented the necessary focus from being reached; however, recently a change in the respondent's position makes us hopeful that serious predetermination settlement discussions can begin shortly.

Summing up, one charge is settled, two are near settlement or litigation, and during this fiscal year the other two should be in similar shape.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Sibal.

Chair Norton, I understand one or two of the commissioners must leave before noon. Perhaps at this time it would be well to introduce them and let us hear from each of them in turn.

Chair NORTON. I do not believe they have prepared testimony. If you would like them to come forward-

Mr. HAWKINS. It may be well for us to know them and give each of them an opportunity to express some view before the committee. Chair NORTON. Yes.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DANIEL LEACH

Commissioner LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I have no formal statement. As you can see from the statement prepared by Commissioner Norton, the Commission is engaged in identifying and working on the very serious problems that confronted this agency of Government as she became chairman. One thing I think is underscored in my experience, having been there for over 2 years now, is the perception expressed at the very highest levels of Government about a year and a half ago by the then Director of the Office of Management and Budget when he characterized EEOC as a disaster. It was a perception, and I use that word advisedly. I think that perception is greatly changed for the better today as a result of the things Ms. Norton has described for the committee.

Mr. HAWKINS. We are pleased to note the progress that has been made in the agency.

May I ask you whether or not in your position as Commissioner have commissioner charges been discussed with you? Have you had an opportunity to participate or to become involved in commissioner charges in systemic discrimination, and if not, why not, or if you have, do you think that enough is being done in this particular field involving the Commissioners?

Commissioner LEACH. To answer the question ideally the way I would like to answer it of course is that no, not enough is being done. But there is so much to be done at EEOC it is a question of sorting out priorities. Your report is very clear on that. We have focused our attention on the backlog, on the one-on-one charge processing system, and we have adopted uniform processing procedures that are beginning to look like they are effective. As we gain control over this one-on-one individual case process, I think, we will be able to devote much more attention to systemic activities, to the bringing of these large pattern and practice cases, but again, I think it is a question of priorities.

Yes, to answer your question, I have been involved in discussions on the systemic program. The Commission sometime ago approved a brandnew systemic program, as both the Chair has indicated as well as the general counsel. This program actually gives commissioners far more opportunity to participate in the bringing of systemic cases by using ultimately we think this 707 pattern-andpractice authority to a much greater extent than it was ever used in the past.

In the past-and I say this just on the basis of the experience I had when I first became a Commissioner-it seemed to me that the individual case was the primary vehicle that an investigator in the field chose to use as a systemic vehicle and that the Commissioners themselves never really had an opportunity to identify in a rational way where the worst practices of employment discrimination re

mained in the economy. We needed to marshal our resources in the most effective way possible to get at these practices.

That was caused by the way our individual case processing was handled at that particular time.

I do not criticize it. I think, however, that what we have offered in the way of a concept provides a more rational approach to ultimately bringing major systemic cases with far more impact. Mr. HAWKINS. Do you believe in your experience that you are in any way insulated from that experience in the field by narrowing of the charges at the intake as compared with what might be done if there were a more direct relationship at intake as to the extent of patterns and practices of discrimination as indicated by even individual charges?

Commissioner LEACH. Mr. Chairman, at one time EEOC was getting about 7,000 charges a month throughout the country by individual complainants. That is my recollection. I do not know what that precise figure is today. It seems to me that yes, perhaps a commissioner could more closely examine the front end of the process more than commissioners are doing so under the present procedure. But I do not know how specifically.

Perhaps more and better reporting would help as we get our computer system geared up and operating more fully. There would be more refined reports to commissioners on a monthly basis about what is occurring at the front end. But I think the important point here is that we are beginning to use this great computer capacity of ours as a law enforcement tool so that we can apply it to identify where those pockets of job discrimination happen to appear in their worst form in the economy, and that is the initial basis upon which our targeting, if you will, is performed under our new systemic

process.

When we are talking about the universe that we have to deal with-75 percent, I think, of all employees in the employment sector is under our jurisdiction-I think using our computers in a more imaginative and creative way as a law enforcement tool is the appropriate direction. That is the direction we are headed in, and I think it is a valid one.

Mr. HAWKINS. Do I understand-and perhaps, Commissioner Norton, you may participate in this answer-that the computerized data fed into the machine will contain all allegations in an individual charge so that if the individual comes into a district office and makes charges that involve systemic aspects, that will be a part of the computerized system that you are developing?

Chair NORTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAWKINS. In other words, that information will be taken at the local office?

Chair NORTON. At the local office.

Mr. HAWKINS. And will be fed into the computer?

Chair NORTON. And will be fed into the computer and whatever office, whether at headquarters or in the 59 offices, one can retrieve that information, and thus an individual charge that would appear to have a systemic potential would stand out.

I might also say that the EEO-1 data will be on the computer as well, and will be available for the district director to immediately compare that data with the charge.