H.R. 9222 covers all employers hiring 8 or more persons and affecting

commerce.

With respect to enforcement, the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission can seek court enforcement of its orders; under title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee may not seek court enforcement of its orders and can only refer cases back to complainants or the Attorney General if they are unable to conciliate them; under H.R. 9222, the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee has full enforcement powers.

I might adhere, Mr. Chairman, even though it does not appear in this mimeographed statement that it seems unthinkable to my colleagues and myself that an unsophisticated complainant would have the know-how or the termity to seek out the Attorney General, or even counsel of his own, or seek to employ counsel or his own.

Under Federal-State relationships, title VII provides that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will defer investigations for a 60-day period of all charges filed from fair employment practice commission States like Illinois.

We might adhere, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the State statute in Illinois provides that within 120 days after the discrimination is alleged to have taken place, that is the time limit that a complainant may file, and that the Commission, within 180 days after the filing period, must reach a decision either to dismiss or to go to public hearing, if conciliation has failed.

This means that the State commissions would have the first opportunity to resolve charges of discrimination arising from the States within a given time limit.

H.R. 9222 has no such deferral provision and presumably, therefore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created by the bill could investigate charges filed from Illinois without notifying the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission or engaging in other cooperative action.

Both title VII and H.R. 9222 provide that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may enter into agreements with State fair employment practice commissions and may cede jurisdiction to State fair employment practice commissions.

In summary, H.R. 9222 increases the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's jurisdiction and power but has no provision, like title VII, for 60-day deferrals of complaints to State fair employment practice commissions.

In order for the State commissions to have the first opportunity to resolve complaints arising in their States, we believe that a deferral provision such as title VII, section 706, subsections b and c of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, should be written into H.R. 9222 to provide that all cases in which the State commission has jurisdiction will be deferred for a given period of time to the State commissions in fair employment practice commission States.

While we endorse this provision and its advantages, we also wish to point out that it can result in a case being carried through two sets of administrative bodies and courts by a complainant or respondent, possibly resulting in diverse and conflicting decisions.

We hope the subcommittee will give some thought to overcoming this disadvantage of the deferral provision.

Finally, in the area of Federal-State cooperation, we urge that H.R. 9222 be amended to direct and enable the EEOC to seek uniform rules, regulations, and procedures between itself and the FEPC's operating in the various States. This would promote greater uniformity between the various commissions to the benefit of complainants and respondents alike.

It says here I will be pleased to answer any questions you may care to ask. I will be pleased to try to answer any questions.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Kemp.

I think in general, as you can tell from the previous discussion, of the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Goodell and myself, and I think the other members agree, that we should try to find a formula such as you have outlined. I think that where we can simplify the procedures and make them uniform, we will hasten justice for everyone concerned. In most of these areas I think it would be advantageous, where the State is doing a good job, to have the State exercise its jurisdiction. I am sure that from past history, none of us have anything else in mind, and we are going to have to work this out.

Can you give me any information as to this? I notice here that you say that about 25 percent show some evidence of discrimination. That means that 75 percent of the cases that are filed, you have decided, have no evidence of discrimination at all?

Mr. KEMP. Well, there are two things, Mr. Chairman. No. 1, because the law in Illinois was passed in 1960, there is a great area of misinformation. My first experience with that was when I addressed and had a question-and-answer period to an organization known as the Cook County Bar Association.

And when I read the terms of the act, it was a source of amazement to the men who normally we would presume had familiarized themselves with it.

No. 2, we ran into a number of spite cases.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. That was really the point of my question. I am sure that there is going to be the allegation that this legislation leaves open the question of harassment by an employee against manufacturing.

What is your experience in this area?

Mr. KEMP. Well, the State statute in Illinois provides that the case must be investigated, if there is a complaint. We have taken the position-and when I say "we" I refer to the commissioners—we have taken the position in reference to the staff that even though it appears on its face that the case may have no merit, that they are dutybound to investigate.

I would say that we take that position because there are many people who simply don't have the ability to express themselves, either in writing or in speaking, and sometimes, a case occurs where a fellow describes his plight very poorly, but subsequently it turns out that his matter does have merit. So that we recognize that particularly in the 1960's, there are those of us who are angry about a number of things, and this is the nature of the beast.

But we insist that every case be followed up, and in turn, the complainant is notified in writing as to the decision of the commission, so that there is no misunderstanding.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Kemp, would you be in favor, in Illinois, of lowering the figure of 50 or more?

Mr. KEMP. There was an attempt. There was legislation introduced at the last Illinois General Assembly, reducing the number to 10; in an effort to compromise, when it appears that that legislation was not going to pass, the figure was altered to 25, and that failed.

So that we recognize that there are more employers employing 50 people or less, possibly not as many people, but more employers employing 50 people or less than there are those who employ more, and the commission feels that the figure should be reduced.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. What is your commission budget?

Mr. KEMP. I am talking off the top of my head, but I think it runs something like $274,00, I believe or 238. I have forgotten.

There is a biennial appropriation made in the tail end of June of this year, and there was an improvement in the payment, or improvement in the budget.

We might add, of course, that the five commissioners who serve in Illinois receive no compensation, so that this is for staff and for rent and postage, et cetera.

Mr. HAWKINS. May I ask, is that biennial?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Biennial. Do you have any coverage for sex or age?

Mr. KEMP. No.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Has there been any effort to achieve that in Illinois? Mr. KEMP. No. No such legislation has been introduced.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Pucinski?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Kemp, I would like to congratulate your commission on the fine job that you have been doing. You say that you had 674 verified charges, and you have resolved 620 of them. It is unfortunate that your commission is known throughout the country as the commission that handed down the Motorola decision. It has brought you a great deal of criticism. I would like to go into the Motorola decision, but I understand it is now pending before the Supreme Court, and I am not sure that it would be wise for us to go into that case at this time.

But generally, it seems to me that you have done a good job. It is too bad that this one situation developed which has brought you a great deal of notoriety and made you one of the most controversial commissions in the country.

Mr. KEMP. Congressman, I would have been surprised if that issue had not been raised here. I would not have been disappointed, but I would have been surprised.

But the matter is in litigation, and we have been advised by the attorney general of Illinois to make no comments on that matter until the Supreme Court of Illinois has handed down a final decision.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I certainly will respect that wish. If the Federal law goes down to eight pople, wouldn't you then establish a vast area in Illinois and New York and many of the other States where you have a good commission, assuming that they are good commissions, in which you will leave matters for the courts to decide?

Wouldn't this have a tendency to put the Federal Government into those States where there is a commission doing a good job, simply because you can't go into areas under 50, while the Federal Government could go into shops employing as few as 8 workers?

Would there be any problems for your commission under that concept?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would the gentleman yield for just a correction of the record?

The law in New York now is six.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I see.

Mr. GOODELL. It has gone down to four.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. It has gone down to four, so it wouldn't affect New York, and the gentleman mentioned New York.

Mr. PUCINSKI. There are 44 State commissions, I believe, and I think that they all have varied criteria. They are all going down, of course, but would this create any problems for you, Mr. Kemp? Would this bring the Federal Government into these areas where a State commission is trying to do a good job, create some duplication? Mr. KEMP. I can only give you the benefit of my experience in Illinois, Congressman. The State statute provides a minimum of 50. Anticipating that there might be this kind of problem, as indicated in the prepared statement, the commission initiated legislation providing for contractual relationships between the EEOC as to however it might turn out, and the State commission.

Obviously, there would be some advantages, so far as the theory and the practice of fair employment in the State of Illinois for those employers who employ less than 50, and there is no opportunity, until 1967, when the State legislature meets again, to reduce that figure from 50 to anything.

So that that would create no problem for 49 down to 8, or whatever. Mr. PUCINSKI. Would you think, Mr. Kemp, that if the Federal law were to do down to 8 or 10, or whatever figure the Congress selects as the proper figure, that this would spur the respective States, including Illinois?

Mr. KEMP. I suspect so.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would this create the possibility of a special session of your State legislature to amend the act to reduce the number so that you would keep the Federal Commission out of your State? I presume the witness before you said that they guard very jealously their prerogatives on the commission, and I would suspect that you are no different from all the other commissions around the country in that respect.

Do you think that by reducing the total number in the Federal act, that this would stimulate the State legislatures to reduce their respective State laws to conform with the Federal standards?

Mr. KEMP. I doubt whether there would be a special session. You are as familiar as I am, if not more so, with the problems of Illinois in reference to the State legislature, and there are those that seem to have more priority than this matter.

But I would imagine that at the next session of the Illinois General Assembly, that the figure would be substantially reduced, if in advance of that, Congress chose to reduce the figure even further than it now exists.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, there seems to be uniform agreement, at least reasonably uniform agreement, among the people that we have talked to who are close to this picture in terms of administration, that the 50 figure is too low.

Now, of course, the chamber of commerce takes the position that we are going to come down to 25, by 1968, and do you think that a 25 figure is a workable figure?

As to coming down to 25 as against going down to 8, what effect would this have on Illinois?

Mr. KEMP. Well, when you are talking about industrial employment, at least in northern Illinois, you have a number of shops that employ 25 or less people, that are engaged in commerce, that are covered by wage standard law and all the other statutes, and are also covered by the Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin bill.

When you talk about 10, you are usually talking about small retail operations. Observations would indicate that the same kind of discrimination and possibly more so, in Illinois, might apply in reference to retail trade as it applies in heavy or light industry.

In order to reach that millennium, where discrimination in employment could be erradicated altogether, without checking with my colleagues, my own opinion would be that the lower the figure, the better the possibility.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and confusion and duplication of jurisdiction, would you have any suggestions for reducing the number? Perhaps we ought to either add another year, and have it go down to 10 by 1969, or maybe accelerate the whole program, and bring it down to 10 by 1968. In any event, your State, and the other States, would have one more opportunity in their State legislatures to conform to the Federal standards. Would there be any merit in that approach?

Mr. KEMP. I would think so.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Now finally, Mr. Kemp, the problem of age. You don't have it in the Illinois law. I think you have heard the previous witness and the colloquy. Do you feel that we ought to have age in this nondiscrimination legislation?

Mr. KEMP. Yes; I do.

I suppose it is universal that 40 is the breaking point in reference to a fellow being able to apply freely in the market for employment, and one of the reasons that we are given to understand is because of the number of firms that have established pensions.

This makes an economical difference, and I paid attention to your proposed legislation where there could be an offset. And this would make the thing much more palatable to an employer who either individually on his own because of a labor contract has a pension plan that is on an actuarial basis, and then, of course, there is the employer who feels that if he takes a fellow beyond 40, and the retirement age is 60, he has got a limited amount of time to train and get the full advantage of this man's work life, or woman's work life. But there is an advantage. Because at 40, as you mention, a fellow has a mortgage and growing children, and all the middle-age responsibilities, this is the peak of his responsibilities, and if he discovers that this is the minimum of his earning power, then he is in bad trouble.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, I agree with you. I have asked Mr. Wirtz, the Secretary of Labor, to give us a third dimension in his monthly figures on employment.

Now we get a figure, total number employed, total number unemployed, and that's all we have. Yet in that category of unemployed, am sure his own reports show this-there is a substantial number of people who continue to be unemployed in this country, for no other reason than because of their age.