Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.—Continued Powell, Hon. John H., Jr.--Continued Letter to Chairman Hawkins, dated August 15, 1974, enclosing re- Memorandum from William A. Carey, "Commission suits expand- Memorandum from Commissioner Raymond L. Telles, "Proposed Sec. 1601.12 deferrals to State and local authorities, excerpt from chapter XIV, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission_--- Summary report, Commissioner's meeting of September 18, 1974__ Annual Report of the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Coun- Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972-Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 showing changes made by 1972 amendments__ Followup response of chairman EEOC to updating of data requested by Letter from chairman, EEOC on steps to eliminate backlog of complaints, Letter from chairman, EEOC on preliminary plans for reduction of backlog of complaints, February 1, 1974. Opinions of Commissioners Ethel Bent Walsh and Raymond L. Telles, re- garding proposed memorandum of understanding between AFL-CIO and Opinions of EEOC general counsel regarding proposed memorandum of understanding between AFL-CIO and EEOC, July 25, 1974, July 30, 1974 and September 11, 1974____. Reply from Comptroller General of U.S. stating decision regarding admin- istrative authority of the chairman EEOC, September 19, 1974---- Reply from general counsel EEOC to chairman__ Summary of Legislation which would broaden the jurisdiction of Equal 271 278 309 300 262 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Augustus F. Hawkins [chairman] presiding. Present: Representatives Hawkins, Chisholm, Mink, Steiger, and Young of Georgia. Staff members present: Lloyd A. Johnson, staff director; Susan Grayson, special assistant; Carole Schanzer, clerk; Richard H. Mosse, minority counsel. [Text of H.R. 15826 follows:] H.R. 15826, 93d Cong., 2d sess. A BILL To terminate age discrimination in employment Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is amended by striking everything after the word “age" and inserting a period. Mr. HAWKINS. The Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities is called to order. This morning, the Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities begins the first of 3 days of scheduled public hearings to assess the readiness of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to assume responsibility over the administration of proposed legislation which would expand prohibition against employment discrimination to include age, physical handicap, type of military discharge, and prior history of drug usage. There are 20 such bills now before the sub committee. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a bipartisan independent Federal agency which is responsible for the administration of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Initially, the Commission's responsibilities were limited to conciliation of employment discrimination problems. On March 24, 1972, upon the enactment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, the jurisdiction of the EEOC was expanded to allow the Commission to take complaints of employment discrimination, which could not be settled through voluntary conciliation, to Federal court for a finding of discrimination. If discrimination is found, the court may issue an order directing the respondent to remedy his past actions. Despite favorable action by the House in 1966 and by the Senate in 1970, necessary joint congressional authorization which would permit EEOC to issue its own cease-anddesist orders has never been achieved. The growth of EEOC since its establishment in 1964 has been little short of remarkable. As the lead Federal agency responsible for the eradication of job discrimination, its budget has grown from $2.25 million in fiscal year 1965 to over $50 million in fiscal year 1975. Its staff has grown from 190 authorized positions in fiscal year 1965 to over 1,600 authorized positions for fiscal year 1975. This growth rate has been matched by increasing public consciousness and sensitivity to the Federal antidiscrimination rights guaranteed to minority groups. As a consequence, there has been a significant increase in the number of job discrimination complaints filed with EEOC. The number of complaints filed has risen from 6,133 in 1965, to over 40,000 complaints in fiscal year 1974. EEOC has been unable to keep pace with this increasingly large number of complaints. The backlog of complaints which has existed almost from the day that the Commission opened its doors, is continuing to mount. By December 31, 1973, there were almost 90,000 complain laints of job discrimination awaiting action by the Commission. At last report, our staff has informed us that number was well in excess of 100,000. Let me also point out that there has been a modest decline in the rate of increase in the number of charges on hand at the Commission. That is to say that, although the backlog of complaints is still increasing, it is doing so at a slower rate. Before this Subcommittee can address the merits of each of these pieces of legislation which is now before the subcommittee, it is essential that we consider the effectiveness with which EEOC is meeting its current responsibilities. Accordingly, the subcommittee will not conduct an analysis of these legislative proposals at this time. Instead, we will examine the continuing problem of the backlog of complaints at EEOC. What is the extent of the Commission's backlog of complaints? What is its nature and causes? What administrative action has been taken or is contemplated to eliminate this backlog? What legislative action may be required? What is the impact of the backlog upon those individuals and groups who are most affected by discriminatory employment practices? These are but a few of the questions which the subcommittee will be struggling with in the days ahead. Since his appointment, the chairman of the Commission, John H. Powell, Jr., has indicated that the elimination of the backlog of complaints is a priority matter for EEOC. He has reaffirmed this policy position in meetings with me and members of the subcommittee staff and in public statements, and progress reports which he has submitted to this subcommittee. The Chair has also asked certain questions of the commission regarding the nature and extent of the backlog. Without objection, these questions and Mr. Powell's responses thereto will be inserted in the record at this point. [The information referred to follows:] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. JOHN H. POWELL, Jr., 2. What is the size and processing stage of the Commission's backlog of complaints, by District office within each regional office as of June 30, 1973; as of June 30, 1974? 3. Indicate any changes in the rate of the growth of backlog of complaints to the Commission during the past six quarters, according to regional office and District office. 4. Provide a comparative breakdown, according to District office and regional office, of complaints which are more than 24 months, 18 months and 12 months old as of June 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974. 5. In your communication to Senator Harrison Williams, Jr., of February 1, 1974, you stated that “*** totally new approaches and systems must be developed to assist both in the elimination of this (backlog) problem over the longer term and in the prevention of its recurrence." Please describe in detail what new approaches and systems, if any, have been implemented or are anticipated to overcome the backlog of complaints to the Commission? 6. Please describe each short range program, which has been planned and/or implemented by each of the Commission's regional offices, which aims to reduce the backlog of complaints to the Commission. 7. Specifically, what resources of the Commission, if any, have been reprogrammed to support these efforts by the regional offices? 8. Describe how the Commission's information system has been improved and developed in an effort to reduce the backlog of complaints filed with the Commission. 9. Describe in detail any changes in the organizational structure of the Commission which you plan or have implemented in an effort to reduce the Commission's backlog in the processing of complaints. What is the rationale for these changes? 10. Describe the training program and staffing pattern of the training academy which the Commission will be establishing in September 1974. What resources have been necessary for the implementation of this academy? What is the source of these resources? 11. Provide a breakdown of the Commission's contracts (actual and projected) with State and local human rights agencies for fiscal year 1974, when the Commission received an appropriation of $2.5 million, and fiscal year 1975, when the Commission requested an appropriation of $5 million, for this purpose. 12. In your testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations on April 30, 1974, you indicated that the Commission would expand its efforts to seek voluntary compliance through its Office of Voluntary Programs, yet no increase in staff of this office was requested. Please indicate how you intend to accomplish this goal. 13. Submit a summary of the findings and recommendations of the recent study of the Commission's investigative systems. To what extent have you, or do you intend to implement these recommendations? 14. Describe what efforts are being made to reduce the current backlog of cases through coordination with State agencies (e.g. FEP) and Federal agencies (e.g. OFCC). 15. Elaborate on the current success of conciliation efforts in resolving charges and reducing the current backlog. 16. Specifically, provide us with a detailed statistical breakdown of the charges disposed of through administrative closure. I look forward to our forthcoming meeting, at which time we will be discussing the programs and operations of the Commission. I am taking the liberty of re questing the above information at this time however, since some time will be required in order to properly prepare your replies. With all good wishes, Sincerely, AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, Chairman. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Attached please find our responses to the questions raised in your letter of July 18, 1974. I hope you will find the material useful in preparation for the upcoming hearings of the Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities. Please note that the data requested is available only through April, 1974. End-of-year data will be forthcoming within thirty to sixty days and will be forwarded to you at that time. In addition, the response to Question No. 4 requires a special computer run. These data should be available in 15 days and will be provided at that time. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance to you or your staff as you prepare for these hearings. I look forward to seeing you soon. Sincerely, JOHN H. POWELL, Jr., Chairman. JULY 30, 1974. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Question 1. What is the size, regional location and processing stage of the Commission's backlog of complaints as of June 30, 1973; as of June 30, 1974? Answer. The attached table shows the total number of uncompleted charges on hand by processing stage for each Region. This number includes those charges which have been assigned for processing but are not yet completed as well as those awaiting assignment. This information is provided as of June 30, 1973 and April 30, 1974. End-of-year data for FY 1974 is not yet available, but will be provided upon receipt. The processing stages shown on the attached table are defined as follows: Pre-Investigation Analysis (PIA).—In the PIA stage charges are received, analyzed, and deferred if appropriate. The number of charges on hand in this stage are all those which have been received but are not yet ready to be investigated. Charges which are awaiting the deferral time requirement are included in this stage, as are charges in which more detailed information is necessary to determine if we have jurisdiction. Investigations.-The number of charges on hand in this stage are all those awaiting assignment to an investigator as well as those which have been assigned but have not yet been completed. Pre-Determination Settlement (PDS).-PDS is an early attempt at settlement when the facts are straight-forward and the Respondent has indicated a willingness to settle. The number of charges in this stage include all the charges assigned for a PDS attempt but not yet completed. Determinations.-In the Determinations stage the facts obtained during the investigations are reviewed and determinations made as to reasonable cause to believe the charge is true. A determination letter is then issued by the District Director to the Respondent and Charging Party giving the determination found. The number of charges on hand in this stage represents all the charges on which investigation is completed but on which a final determination has not yet been issued to the Respondent and Charging Party. Conciliation.-In the Conciliation stage an attempt is made to obtain a suitable remedy where a finding of reasonable cause has been made. The number of charges on hand in this stage are all those charges on which a reasonable cause finding has been made and on which the conciliation effort is still incomplete. |