The Regional Director will recommend Annual (Blanket) Travel Authorization for investigators assigned to Section 707 Teams. The Authorization will cover travel to any area required for the performance of duties relating to Section 707 action. The Executive Director will approve the blanket travel authorization and forward it to the Chief, Financial Management Division.

At the request of the Team Captain, District Directors will issue travel requests for their own respective personnel, using the blanket travel authorization assigned the team member as their source of authority. Approved:

General Counsel.

Director, Office of Compliance.

Executive Director.

FISHER & PHILLIPS,

Atlanta, Ga., October 28, 1974.

Re: Hearings on EEOC case backlog.
Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS,

Chairman, House Labor Subcommittee on Equal Opportunity, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HAWKINS: As labor practitioners representing employers in numerous EEOC cases, we would like to present some of our thoughts on possible solutions to the EEOC case backlog.

In our opinion, the backlog could be substantially reduced by implementation of the following policies.

(1) Better screening of charges. Charging parties should be interviewed more carefully and should be required to present some evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination. For example, typically a charge will merely state, "I believe I was discharged because of my race, which is black." The only facts in the case are that the charging party is black and that he was discharged. The EEOC then engages in a lengthy investigation without requiring the charging party to present any specific facts to support his allegations of discrimination. The Commission's investigator who accepts the charge should conduct an interview of the charging party at that time to obtain the specific facts that cause him to believe the action complained of was based on race or other factors proscribed by the Act. If the charging party has no facts to establish a prima facie case, the charge should be rejected or dismissed. It might be desirable in such an instance to issue a right-to-sue notice or to institute an appeal procedure within the EEOC in order to insure that charging parties' rights are preserved. If a prima facie case is presented, the respondent should be advised of the specific prima facie allegations and be given the opportunity to present its position prior to an on-site investigation or the demand for specific documentary evidence. At the same time, charges should be reviewed more carefully to reject immediately those that are clearly untimely or where, for some other reason, the EEOC clearly lacks jurisdiction.

As labor practitioners, we see the NLRB uses such a procedure to good advantage on unfair labor practice charges, many of which are filed by unsophisticated individuals without the assistance of a union. The EEOC intake investigator, like the NLRB agent, can provide the legal sophistication. If the charging party under interrogation cannot even allege a prima facie case of discrimination, the EEOC should move on to more meritorious charges.

(2) Better use should be made of preinvestigation settlements. While EEOC regulations contain a provision for predetermination settlements, it has been our experience that in many districts, the local officials are reluctant to utilize this procedure on grounds that the investigation of each charge must seek to determine if broad "class" issues are present. The EEOC should be willing to participate in, indeed should encourage, the negotiation of predetermination settlements without conducting a full investigation into all possible class issues, especially if the charging party does not insist upon class relief. Again, better interviewing of charging parties would identify those cases involving clear provable broad scale class discrimination which would perhaps properly require some investigation before settlement discussions could be initiated.

(3) Along the same line, the EEOC should encourage voluntary informal settlement directly between the charging party and the respondent in appropriate cases and should allow the routine withdrawal of charges by request of the charging party. For example, both the NLRB and the Wage-Hour Division of the Department of Labor have effectively utilized similar procedures in cases of isolated complaints. Very frequently a phone call to the respondent by the agency will result in informal satisfaction of the charging party and will allow the withdrawal of the charge. The EEOC, on the other hand, sometimes actually convinces charging parties not to have any discussion or communication with respondent-employers.

(4) The EEOC should also routinely consolidate all outstanding charges against a particular respondent for investigation at one time. While this is sometimes done, it is not uniformly followed, and we have had instances where the EEOC has refused over the strenuous objections of the respondent to consolidate charges against that respondent. By consolidating and investigating all outstanding charges at the same time, the EEOC could utilize its manpower and resources more efficiently while also saving considerable expenses and effort on the part of respondents.

(5) The EEOC should institute a policy of dismissing charges where the charging party is no longer available or no longer has any interest in pursuing the matter. As it stands now, the EEOC once it is ready to investigate or conciliate a charge, will simply put it aside indefinitely if the charging party is not available, apparently in the hope that the charging party may someday return and express interest in pursuing the matter. In addition to increasing the administrative delay, this practice frequently makes voluntary conciliation or settlement more difficult by compounding the respondent's alleged back-wage liability. (6) Consideration should be given to adopting a policy of automatically issuing right-to-sue notices after 180 days have expired. Such a practice appears to be required by the wording of the statute. On the other hand, perhaps the Commission could exercise some judgment in issuing such right-to-sue letters and retain for subsequent investigation and conciliation those cases it considers to be of particular significance. At the same time, the EEOC should close its files as a matter of course in those cases where a right-to-sue letter is issued.

Similarly, the EEOC should issue right-to-sue letters where it has failed to follow the procedures established by the statute or its own regulations, for example, failing to issue the 10-day notice of change.

We have long been concerned with the seemingly ever-growing EEOC case backlog and are certainly pleased that your subcommittee has undertaken a study of this problem. We do hope that some practical solutions will result. If there is anything further that we can contribute, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely yours,

CHARLES KELSO.