text:
U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
PAUL M. IGASAKI, Chairman
Chair, Priority Charge Handling Task Force
PAUL STEVEN MILLER, Commissioner
Chair, Litigation Task Force
March 1998
The Challenge
Building the Team to Achieve Success
A Tool for Improvement: The Local Enforcement Plan
Fine-Tuning the Charge Process
Legislative/Investigative Collaboration
Maximizing Agency Resources
Headquarters Support and Technical Assistance
Headquarters Support of NEP Case Development
Delegation of ADA Litigation Authority
Coordination Among Offices
Role of Headquarters Systemic Units
Field Structure and Staffing
The Commission's LEP Policy
The Current LEPs
Implementation of New LEPs
Commissioner Charges and Directed Investigations
Strategic Outreach Under the LEPs
Case Categorization and NEP/LEP Intake Issues
Dismissals at Intake
The Sharing of Case File Information
The Identification and Investigation of A Charges
On-Site Investigations
The Investigation of B Charges
Determination Counseling
Pre-Determination, Settlements, Conciliation and ADR
Relationship with the Private Bar
Investigator/Attorney Collaboration
The Roles of District Directors and Regional Attorneys
Administrative Decision-Making
Administrative Obstacles to Field Office Efficiency
Legal Unit Support to Area and Local Offices
Techniques for Facilitating Case Development
Report of the Priority Charge Handling and Litigation Task Forces
The Commission has made substantial progress in many areas since implementation of the Priority Charge Handling Procedures (PCHP) in 1995 and the National Enforcement Plan (NEP) in 1996. Field offices have reduced the charge inventory by more than 40%, victims of discrimination are recovering more benefits as a result of Commission enforcement efforts, and the number of cases in the agency's docket that challenge the most serious violations is increasing.
The challenge facing the Commission is how it can build on its recent successes by creating an enforcement program that has the maximum impact on workplace discrimination within the confines of its budget. This report offers recommendations for improvement in four critical areas.
On February 12, 1997, then Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas asked then Vice Chair Paul M. Igasaki to lead a Task Force to assess the implementation of the agency's Priority Charge Handling Procedures (PCHP) and Commissioner Paul Steven Miller to lead a Task Force to assess the agency's litigation program.
Chairman Casellas specifically requested that Vice Chair Igasaki's Task Force look at the effectiveness of the charge processing changes which had been adopted by the Commission in April 1995. He also stated that he was particularly interested in knowing whether PCHP was meeting the goals of the Commission, and asked the Task Force to develop recommendations for any "mid-course corrections" which may further advance effective civil rights law enforcement.
Chairman Casellas asked Commissioner Miller's Task Force to assess the agency's litigation program with particular attention to the most effective approaches to identifying, investigating and litigating egregious cases of employment discrimination, and how best to implement and attain the agency's National Enforcement Plan/Local Enforcement Plan (NEP/LEP) goals.
While Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is becoming an increasingly important part of the Commission's enforcement program, Chairman Casellas stated that it was beyond the scope of the Task Forces. As a result, EEOC's ADR program is not assessed in this report. Because the program was relatively new, it was too early to do an assessment.
The PCHP system and NEP/LEP framework were developed some two and a half years ago to respond to operational challenges faced by the EEOC at that time. The Task Forces are also operating in the spirit and aspirations of the National Performance Review (NPR). The Commission's core challenge, stretching limited resources to cover the growing problem of employment discrimination, is particularly suited to this approach.
The initial deliberations of each Task Force resulted in independent conclusions that it was impossible to separate the issues affecting charge handling and litigation in the EEOC. An examination of either component of the agency's work requires an examination of the other. Indeed, the original Charge Processing Task Force (CPTF) Report that recommended the changes that we are now assessing emphasized the importance of viewing the system as integrated, and required close cooperation between the investigative and legal staffs. It made sense, therefore, for the two Task Forces to set a collaborative tone and work together to deliver a consistent message.
The recommendations of this joint Task Force report serve both to answer inquiries as to how priority charge handling and litigation are being implemented by the Commission and suggest how together these functions might be improved. These recommendations were developed with significant internal staff and external stakeholder input. (See Appendix D, Stakeholder Input to Task Forces.) It is hoped that these approaches might add to the reforms adopted some three years ago and will move the EEOC closer to the goals of a balanced and strategic enforcement program.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). As originally designed, the Commission's primary responsibility was to receive and investigate charges of unlawful employment practices, and to attempt to conciliate the dispute if the investigation revealed reasonable cause to believe the charge of discrimination was true. The Commission did not have the authority to enforce its determinations in court if conciliation failed. In 1966, the Commission began opening field offices which were tasked with conducting most of the agency's charge investigations and conciliations. By the end of 1971, the Commission had seven regional offices that oversaw 27 district offices. Because the agency did not have the authority to judicially enforce its administrative findings of discrimination, many employers did not take the Commission's voluntary conciliation process seriously.
By April 1970, in response to an aging charge inventory, the Commission adopted a "Pre-Determination Settlement" procedure which permitted district offices to make conciliation efforts prior to a Commission determination regarding the merits of a charge. In further response to the charge inventory, the Commissioners, in 1972, delegated the authority to make reasonable cause determinations to the District Directors where there was already a Commission decision setting forth the agency's interpretation of the law on the point at issue. In spite of these efforts, the Commission continued to receive far more charges per year than it could investigate. During the 1970s, the Commission began to experience a substantial buildup in its case inventory. Its charge inventory went from 53,000 in June 1972, to 106,000 in June 1975 and to 130,000 in April 1977.
Although the Commission had no enforcement power prior to 1972, it did make a substantial contribution to the development of Title VII case law. Recognizing that the courts, primarily in private suits, were construing the procedural requirements as well as the substantive reach of Title VII without agency input, the Commission began the practice of filing amicus curiae briefs in important cases. The Commission shaped the development of decisional law by obtaining judicial deference to the views of the agency charged with the day-to-day administration of the statute. The Commission was thus able to influence the outcome of several important cases.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 amended Title VII in a number of significant ways. The most important amendments, for purposes of this discussion, were those that gave the agency authority to file lawsuits against private employers, labor unions and employment agencies, if the agency found reasonable cause to believe the Act had been violated and conciliation had failed. To carry out its new litigation authority, the Commission created five Regional Litigation Centers which were separate from the district offices. Each center had 30 to 40 attorneys. Although these Litigation Centers were responsible for litigating cases generated primarily by investigators from field offices, there was little day-to-day contact between the Commission's investigators and its trial lawyers.
From these five Litigation Centers, the agency brought cases affecting large numbers of people and policy cases, as well as individual suits seeking specific relief for an aggrieved party. These suits challenged many entrenched policies, such as the widespread practice of employers following outmoded state "protective" laws for women; airline rules restricting flight attendant positions to women; involuntary furloughs of pregnant employees, and restrictive recruiting practices designed to exclude racial minorities. The realistic possibility of litigation provided by the 1972 amendments dramatically increased the Commission's ability to conduct a credible voluntary conciliation process.
In 1977, the Commission adopted a reorganization plan that eliminated the "regional office" level of the bureaucracy and provided for its district offices to report directly to headquarters. The five regional litigation centers were disbanded and the attorneys spread among the district offices. The shifting of attorneys to field offices was designed to improve coordination between Commission attorneys and investigators and to develop better quality cases. Each district office had a Regional Attorney who supervised 11 to 15 lawyers. These attorneys were responsible to the District Directors for nonlitigation activities while their litigation duties were carried out under the direction of the General Counsel. This dual chain of command with sometimes conflicting demands on attorney time continues in a somewhat different form to this day.
As noted earlier, the agency's charge inventory mushroomed to 130,000 by 1977. To address this problem, the Commission began a program to reduce the charge inventory -- the "rapid charge process." This new procedure sought to bring charging parties and respondents together for fact finding conferences before the Commission began an investigation. The goal of these conferences was to bring about quick settlements, thereby helping to reduce the charge inventory.
As a result of the Presidential Reorganization Act of 1978, EEOC was given the additional responsibilities of enforcing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Equal Pay Act (EPA). In addition, the Commission was given the responsibility for coordinating federal sector employment discrimination enforcement efforts. While the Commission did receive an increase in its budget along with its increased statutory responsibilities, it continued to struggle with its substantially expanded workload.
The Commission's reorganization was completed in January 1979. There were 22 district offices that had investigative and legal units. In addition, 27 area and local offices were created that reported to the district offices. During this period, the Commission's continued efforts at charge inventory reduction brought its charge inventory down to between 30,000 and 40,000 charges. Also in 1979, the Commission introduced its Early Litigation Identification program under which attorneys and investigators teamed up to identify likely litigation vehicles. This represented a swing in the direction of a more proactive approach to the development of Commission litigation.
The Commission's efforts to control its inventory came under considerable criticism in a 1982 General Accounting Office (GAO) Report. While the rapid charge processing program had reduced the Commission's charge inventory to 76,000 charges, the program had its limitations. The crux of the GAO's criticism was that the Commission's emphasis on rapid charge processing and early settlement meant that many meritorious charges were being settled early for less than what they were worth, while many non-meritorious charges were being settled early for too much.
In response to the GAO report, in January 1983 the Commission decreased its emphasis on early case resolutions. Over the next two years it adopted three policies intended to provide appropriate relief to charging parties with meritorious claims. In December 1983, the Commission adopted a policy that shifted its focus from rapid charge processing to a case-by-case "full investigation" approach. In September 1984, the Commission adopted an enforcement policy requiring district offices to submit for litigation approval all cases in which they found reasonable cause where conciliation efforts failed. In February 1985, the Commission announced that when reasonable cause was found, it would not settle the case for less than "full relief" for the victim.
During the mid-1980s, the number of pattern and practice and other lawsuits challenging entrenched or widespread forms of discrimination that the agency had traditionally prosecuted dropped dramatically. This change in the Commission's enforcement efforts led to the charge that the agency had abdicated its civil rights enforcement leadership role.
In the early 1990s, Congress expanded the Commission's enforcement responsibilities considerably with the passage of two laws. In 1990, President Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. EEOC was authorized to enforce Title I of the ADA, as it applies to private employers. The Commission was also authorized to investigate charges of discrimination filed against public employers, but judicial enforcement authority for these cases was given to the Department of Justice. The next year President Bush signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which provided for an award of compensatory and punitive damages for individuals proving a violation of Title VII or the ADA.
Largely as a result of these increased statutory responsibilities, the Commission again experienced a dramatic increase in charge filings during the early 1990s. The Commission's charge receipts increased from 63,898 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1991 to 91,189 in FY 1994. Despite the increasing responsibilities and the rise in charge filings, Congress did not provide additional resources. As a result, enforcement staff at the agency was not able to keep up with the increased workload. The pending charge inventory, which had hovered between 30,000 and 40,000 in the early 1980s, had increased to 111,345 by the third quarter of FY 1995, when the PCHP went into effect.
A number of significant lessons can be learned from this review of the Commission's enforcement history. The agency has faced severe budgetary limitations over the past two decades. During the same period, it also experienced a decrease in staff size and increased statutory responsibilities. The agency has had periods with increased charge inventories that in some cases resulted in poorer services being provided to individual charging parties and employers. At the same time, the agency has had substantial swings in the size and quality of its litigation docket. The challenge for the current agency leadership is thus to craft an enforcement program that not only maintains charge handling at a reasonable pace but also identifies and develops cases, for settlement or litigation, that have a substantial effect on discrimination.
The reforms implemented as a result of the CPTF dramatically reduced the Commission's charge inventory. The agency's pending charge inventory fell from 111,000 in 1995, immediately following introduction of charge processing reforms, to fewer than 66,000 at the end of the first quarter of FY 1998. This represents a 40% reduction in charge inventory.
For two successive years in the recent past, the Commission operated on an essentially level budget. Because nearly 90% of the agency's budget is comprised of "fixed costs," such as salaries, benefits, and rent which are subject to mandatory cost-of-living increases as well as inflation, level funding actually represents a significant cut in terms of funds available for "discretionary" items such as litigation support and travel. As the pool of discretionary funds decreases, so does the agency's ability to invest in critical needs such as training and technology.
In light of the Commission's lean staff, the gains in inventory management noted above are even more remarkable.
The President, however, has proposed a 15% increase in the Commission's budget. The President's budget includes an increase of 13 million for mediation, 14.5 million for inventory reduction and nine and a half million for technology. This is the most significant budgetary increase the Commission has received in two decades. These additional funds would help the Commission resolve more cases through mediation, significantly reduce the agency's inventory and make possible an improved technology infrastructure. The proposed increase in agency funds will enable the agency to resolve cases more efficiently, provide better and more timely customer service, and through the use of improved technology, provide more consistent services across our 50 field offices.
The challenge facing the Task Forces is to identify what additional steps can be taken to make the Commission even more effective in balancing the agency's workload while it seeks to identify, investigate, settle, and if necessary, litigate cases that will have a significant impact on employment discrimination.
The Commission is at a critical point in its history. The agency has made substantial progress in the last three years toward becoming a more effective and flexible law enforcement agency. At the same time, it has yet to tap the full potential that can be realized if its employees work together to achieve clearly articulated goals. The PCHP, instituted in 1995, and the NEP, set out in 1996, are tools designed to provide for both the control of a burgeoning backlog and the identification of strong cases for enforcement. With these initiatives, the Commission committed itself to a proactive and strategic approach to fighting discrimination.
The collective view of the Task Forces, after wide consultation with internal and external stakeholders, is that the agency has made important progress in the past two and a half years, particularly in reducing its national charge inventory and beginning the process of transforming its docket. The enforcement flexibility that is part of the new system has resulted in a number of promising outcomes. The charge inventory is down by more than 40%, victims of discrimination are recovering more benefits, and the number of cases on the docket that involve egregious violations is increasing. Nonetheless, the enforcement program has produced uneven results and there is a need to define more clearly what counts in determining the success of the Commission's efforts. The Task Forces believe the Commission can do better and will do better if it leverages the potential of its employees by:
Throughout its history, EEOC has been challenged by the reality of ongoing, pernicious discrimination in the workplace and inadequate resources to attack the problem in a comprehensive manner. Facing up to this reality, the Commission adopted a vision of strategic enforcement that would enable it to make the most of the resources it has in fighting discrimination. This vision was set out when the Commission adopted the PCHP in 1995 and the NEP in 1996. Under the new system, offices were to process cases more quickly, zeroing in on the cases that would have the most impact on discrimination and quickly disposing of cases not likely to have merit.
Although the Commission has made real progress toward controlling its pending inventory and reorienting its enforcement efforts toward significant cases, the agency still has a way to go before the vision implicit in the new approaches is fully implemented. A few offices continue to struggle with a bloated and aging inventory. The number of strong cases producing either settlements or litigation is inadequate for some offices, and the proportion of cases involving large numbers of aggrieved individuals being developed and filed is less than was anticipated. Although there was a significant dip in the number of suits filed in FY 1996, Commission investigators had a record number of cause findings. In addition, the Commission's national litigation numbers are back up for FY 1997. The agency currently has approximately 380 cases in litigation. Likewise, the number of suits brought on behalf of large numbers of aggrieved individuals is up for FY 1997. Moreover, the Commission has achieved a significant increase in benefits collected for charging parties since the PCHP and NEP reforms.
The challenge faced by the Commission is to continue to build on its recent successes, and to leverage the talents of its employees to achieve significant enforcement successes in all of its offices. Despite a good start, the agency still needs to develop more strategic cases and continue its ongoing efforts to control the inventory of cases in the system. The budgetary increase proposed by the President will help the Commission resolve more cases through mediation and will, through technological advances, increase the agency's overall efficiency and significantly improve its customer service.
The Commission's efforts to investigate, settle, and where necessary, litigate cases are not independent segments of the Commission's enforcement program. They are overlapping, reinforcing parts of the whole. It is no more reasonable to ask which leg of a chair is necessary for it to stand upright than it is to ask which part of the Commission's enforcement program is the key ingredient to its success. The best results for charging parties will often be obtained through settlement. However, without a credible and visible litigation program, the Commission will be hindered in its efforts to settle meritorious cases in the investigative process. Moreover, because the details in Commission cases are confidential prior to filing suit, the Commission often must rely on the facts of its court cases to put a human face on the ongoing workplace discrimination its employees hear about every day. As noted by a former EEOC Commissioner, the EEOC was a "toothless tiger" before it was given litigation authority. The Commission's challenge is to use that authority strategically to have the maximum impact on workplace discrimination.
All field offices must work together to achieve their office's enforcement goals, and all headquarters staff must provide support, staffing, resources, technical assistance and oversight necessary for each field office to succeed. Moreover, with the support, coordination and encouragement of headquarters, the field offices must work together as members of a national law enforcement agency. Indeed, in performing their work in support of the agency's enforcement mission, headquarters offices also utilize support and guidance from field personnel. The same type of planning process to produce LEPs based upon the input of office stakeholders should help focus headquarters strategies. To the extent that individual offices require assistance in pursuing their LEP strategies, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the Office of Field Programs (OFP) should continue detailing or otherwise involving appropriate staff from other field offices in addition to offering headquarter's expertise. OGC and OFP have begun to do this. Expertise and experience must be shared between offices and within offices to maximize the agency's effectiveness. Regional strategies and collaborations are being explored by OGC and OFP as well. Strategic cooperation, involving consolidated investigations and negotiations with national employers, for example, will help provide more effective and more uniform enforcement. In general, team building among field offices will not occur without regular communication among field offices about enforcement activities and without timely information sharing and strong joint encouragement and leadership from the Commission, OGC and OFP. Improved technology, which will be possible as a result of the President's proposed budgetary increase, also can contribute to inter-office coordination and team building.
To ensure consistent ongoing attention to how all the pieces of the Commission's national enforcement strategy are fitting together, the Task Forces are recommending the creation of a national enforcement strategy group. This group, with representatives from various offices, will help develop national approaches to implement the NEP with input from substantive issue work teams involving the agency's best experts from the field and headquarters. Before the revised LEPs are approved, OGC and OFP must ensure that NEP coverage is balanced nationwide and negotiate changes where necessary. Once the LEPs are in place, OGC and OFP should use the substantive issue work groups to further develop national and regional strategies on issues of overlapping interest. In some instances, law development and associated enforcement strategies should be developed on a federal circuit court basis. The LEPs and associated strategic documents, once approved by the Commission, will provide the connection between field enforcement and the NEP. In this way, Commission resources will be better coordinated and team building will naturally occur around discreet issues.
Although a number of the Commission's field offices have produced significant litigation results in the last two years, others have dockets that do not approach the national goals set out in the NEP or the local goals set out in their LEPs. For some offices, a number of significant cases are currently being developed and are expected to be filed or settled in the coming months. For others, there is a need for renewed emphasis on identifying NEP/LEP charges and expediting their investigations. Both Task Forces agree that the Commission must strategically apply its limited resources to cases where it will have the greatest effect on discrimination. The availability of private counsel normally mitigates against Commission involvement in a private suit. However, there will be strategic situations where it will be appropriate for the Commission to intervene to represent the public interest, to seek relief for other parties who do not have counsel, to develop the record, to ensure adequate systemic relief or to affect the development of the law. To ensure that the Commission's resources are used wisely, it is essential that all Regional Attorneys continue to carefully follow the intervention standards set forth in the Regional Attorney's Deskbook. In addition, the General Counsel should continue to ensure that these standards are followed in all cases in which the Commission intervenes.
The new charge handling procedures and the NEP/LEPs ask Commission staff to prioritize cases that can raise complex factual and legal issues. If staff are to meet these higher expectations, the Commission must provide adequate training and support to enable its employees to succeed. The Task Forces applaud the increased emphasis on training that this Administration has provided, and offer a number of recommendations for how the Commission's training resources should be prioritized and leveraged with other training resources outside the agency to have the greatest impact on the development of skills that will translate into improved enforcement. Training necessary to accomplish LEP objectives should be spelled out in individual office training plans, and should guide national planning efforts. More practical examples of how case prioritization is to be applied to specific case situations should help in strengthening the current system. Training is largely an individual office's responsibility and must include regular updates by appropriate existing staff and the use of volunteers from outside the agency as well.
The experience and resources available in each of the Commission's offices and the external environments faced by each office vary dramatically. The Task Forces accordingly have recognized the importance of establishing goals that are tailored to the circumstances of each office, but that can be measured in a consistent and useful manner. The Task Forces believe that all of the Commission's offices can and should optimize their outcomes by setting realistic enforcement goals in the LEPs and being held responsible for achieving these goals.
As originally conceived, the LEP was to provide a tool for understanding local office directions and assessing progress. Practically, however, the format and scope of the current LEPs vary so much from office to office that they do not yet provide a reliable means to assess outcomes or provide support. The Task Forces believe that more carefully focused, succinct and uniformly organized LEPs can provide the cornerstone of an effective national enforcement program. The documents should be approached as "contracts" or agreements between each field office and the Commission that set out realistic goals tailored to the unique resources of each office and the community it serves. District Directors and Regional Attorneys must be jointly responsible for achieving goals set forth in the LEPs. The LEPs of all field offices, when taken as a whole, must set forth a comprehensive national law enforcement program.
In developing their LEPs, many of the Commission's field offices have not adequately tapped the resources of their local stakeholder communities, including historically under-served groups, to identify discrimination issues in their jurisdiction. Offices must develop these critical relationships if the Commission is to be an effective civil rights enforcement agency serving the nation as a whole. Developing these relationships will require ongoing discussions and responsiveness on the part of field leadership and may not produce immediate results. But this outreach is both required by the agency's statute and by the need for effective relationships with its "customers." What happens informally often will matter more than what is done in response to formal requests for training or speaking opportunities. Moreover, the Commission must use media effectively to explain to the public the purposes of litigation and other enforcement efforts. Office LEPs should specify how outreach will be used to accomplish LEP objectives and overcome barriers that have caused some groups to be under-represented in that office's enforcement activities.
In many offices, the PCHP has facilitated a marked reduction in the average caseload per investigator. This progress should enable field investigative resources to be focused on developing significant cause cases addressing issues identified in the NEP and the reconfigured LEPs. Due to the continuing high volume of charges and lean staffing, however, investigator caseloads are still too high in most offices. This report includes a number of recommendations designed to build upon the successes offices have achieved in beginning to reduce their inventories. It is important that inventory control be viewed as an ongoing process and not a one-shot project to be done when the caseload has led to unacceptable delays in the processing of charges. The entire team must be pursuing the same unified goal of a strategic case process that dismisses the non-meritorious cases as soon as possible and develops the strongest ones with the same efficiency. The agency also needs to standardize definitions so that there can be coordination between offices, appropriate support provided and common inputs collected in a national database.
The President's proposed budget for FY 1999 includes 14.5 million dollars for inventory reduction. This budgetary increase, along with the other increases included in the Administration's proposals, will provide the staff needed to greatly reduce the agency's inventory and improve our customer service.
After the NEP and PCHP were implemented, there was a temporary decrease in the number of cases settled or litigated. While some decrease might be expected with a new program, the importance of a consistent enforcement program and the size of the reduction caused concern. Even as many offices made significant progress in reducing their charge inventories, the development of strong cases appears to have been neglected by some offices. The Task Forces believe that the Commission cannot afford to trade off inventory management for development of significant cases for resolution through litigation or settlement. Nor can it focus only on the development of significant cases to the exclusion of efficient case processing. Both functions are critical to the success of the agency, and field offices must balance the emphasis placed on each function, just as they must balance staffing resources between attorneys, paralegals, investigators, administrative and support staffs.
The distinctions between "enforcement" and "legal" units that historically have separated the investigatory process from the court process in this agency are no longer meaningful and inhibit effective charge processing and litigation. All staff in field investigative and legal units are devoted to the Commission's enforcement mission. Each office must recognize that a successful enforcement program necessarily includes a successful litigation program as well as an efficient charge processing system. In fact, well-publicized and appropriate litigation or settlements send an enforcement message that should deter other violations, raise the credibility of the entire office, and enhance its ability to investigate and conciliate other significant cases. Based upon the recommendations of the earlier CPTF, increased involvement from attorneys in a collaborative charge handling approach has improved the process in most offices. Recognizing the artificial distinction between "charge processing" and "litigation development," the two Task Forces have worked together to create a unified report that addresses the entire enforcement process from intake to appellate decisions. For the recommendations in this report to bear fruit, it is essential that the Commission, OGC and OFP work closely together in overseeing the report's implementation.
In sum, the Task Forces believe that the budgetary constraints under which the Commission has been forced to operate over the past 20 years has adversely affected the effectiveness of our agency's enforcement program, including our ability to process charges timely and efficiently. The implementation of the PCHP has led to a dramatic decrease in charge inventory and to a more strategic law enforcement program. Continued improvements in charge processing, customer service and in our strategic enforcement program will be limited if the Commission does not receive a significant budget increase. The budget increase proposed by President Clinton will allow the Commission to make significant improvements in all areas of its work.
In an era of budgetary constraints and an expanded workload, the Commission must be as strategic, effective and efficient as possible if it is to succeed. The agency must work to overcome the structural, operational and cultural barriers outlined in this report. Historically, divisions between investigative and legal units have been both structural and "cultural." Prior to implementation of the PCHP, the NEP and the LEPs, there was often considerable pressure on investigators to focus on case closure at the expense of cause case development and litigation. In addition, approximately 85% of the agency's litigation docket consisted of cases based on individual charges. While individual cases should be part of a diversified docket, the limited scope of these charges meant that they could not be developed into cases that would advance the law, affect broad discriminatory patterns or practices or provide relief in cases involving large numbers of people. The effort to develop a strategic, focused enforcement program also was hindered by the fact that the Commission has 24 district and 26 area, local and field offices, operating in a semi-autonomous fashion.
The Task Forces commend the leadership in OGC and OFP for recently taking steps to build bridges across offices in litigating cases and developing enforcement strategies. OGC and OFP also have held regional meetings to address case development and litigation issues. These promising first steps should form the basis for routine partnering, strategizing, and information sharing throughout headquarters and the field. Similarly, the Appellate Services section of OGC and the Policy Development Committee created by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) are examples of Commission offices functioning effectively as part of a strategic law enforcement agency.
The ability of the Commission's employees to work together is of paramount importance if the Commission is to be a more effective enforcement agency. Team building encompasses the premise that Commission employees work together, regardless of their job classification, to achieve a common goal -- enforcement of the civil rights statutes which Congress has entrusted to the Commission. Team building was addressed earlier in the original Charge Processing Task Force Report:
The relationship between headquarters and the field, among field offices, and between legal and enforcement staffs must be improved so that communication is encouraged, and second-guessing and fault-finding are replaced by a culture of working together toward common goals. (CPTF Report at 3)
Strategic utilization of legal and enforcement unit staff is both envisioned and required in the Commission's NEP, as well as in the LEPs.
There have been important improvements in teamwork on a number of levels since the PCHP and the NEP were issued. However, in some offices, there still exists a culture where finger-pointing is the response to concerns about office enforcement results. When Task Force members visited field offices as part of our information gathering, we heard from some staff that the investigations unit was to blame for the lack of litigation because investigators need training and continue to focus primarily on resolutions, or that legal does not adequately support the investigation of cause cases and does not respect the work of investigators. For our enforcement program to be successful, it is essential that District Directors, Regional Attorneys, and leaders throughout the agency build a culture where there is joint ownership of the enforcement process from intake to litigation, and joint accountability for results. There is no magic recipe for making an office function as a team, but clearly a good place to start is with District Directors and Regional Attorneys working well together in overseeing the enforcement program in each office. In addition, both District Directors and Regional Attorneys must have an investment in the success of the case processing and litigation programs.
Given the variations among office resources and cultures, the recommendations in this section are designed to provide OGC and OFP and individual offices the flexibility to adopt and implement those techniques which will best allow them to meet the Commission's goal of fostering and improving relationships among staffs while developing cause cases and litigation that support the NEP and the LEPs. Not all recommendations will fit each situation, but all should be considered. Headquarters managers should provide whatever support is necessary to facilitate the accomplishment of this goal.
In the past two decades, the Commission has lacked the resources necessary to become a technologically up-to-date, service oriented law enforcement agency. The PCHP procedural reforms have brought down our inventory dramatically and we have taken the first steps in making needed agency reforms. The additional funds sought by the Administration for FY 1999 will enable the Commission to make even more significant advances in reducing our inventory, providing better customer service, and in developing a more strategic, technically sophisticated law enforcement program.
Headquarters should play a supportive role in assisting the field offices in accomplishing the agency's enforcement mission. In addition, headquarters offices should better coordinate information and reporting requests to the field by first ensuring that the benefit derived from the requested information justifies the expenditure of staff time. Headquarters, while exercising a necessary element of oversight and supervision, must approach the field offices as "customers," and provide that level of service required to enhance the overall effectiveness of the Commission. Headquarters offices have increased the customer service orientation of their work with field offices in recent years. To bring about even further improvements in this area, the Task Forces recommend that each headquarters office develop a Field Support Plan that will describe that office's approach for enhancing the level of service provided to field staff. In developing these plans, headquarters offices should consult broadly with field staff who use their services to identify and implement strategies for improving the responsiveness and accountability of headquarters staffs to our employees in the field. Once the plans are operational, field staff should be asked to evaluate periodically the quality of service they are receiving from headquarters offices.
In order to monitor the effectiveness of the NEP and the LEPs, the Task Forces recommend the creation of a national enforcement strategy group with representation from Commissioners' staffs, OGC, OFP, OLC and field personnel to discuss major policy cases that are under investigation or in litigation. This group should meet regularly to examine the national program, and to develop strategies for effective NEP implementation, recommending adjustments where necessary, filling gaps in the national enforcement effort, and facilitating interoffice collaboration and support. The national enforcement strategy group, which might appropriately be co-chaired by the General Counsel and Director of OFP, would be chiefly responsible for the coordination and support of legal and investigative enforcement units on nationwide class and other multi-jurisdictional class or Commissioner charges would provide guidance on the kinds of cases that need to be developed based on a sound analysis of precedent in the federal judicial circuits and input from stakeholder groups.
Subsidiary cluster groups should be formed with membership from a range of field and headquarters offices to develop statute-specific strategies to address particular discriminatory practices, law development, or implications of significant court decisions. These clusters should include investigative and legal enforcement staffs. Each cluster group should designate a member from the field to represent them on the national enforcement strategy group. By helping field offices implement strong LEPs with realistic goals and timetables, the cluster groups and the national enforcement strategy group will strengthen the efforts of the Commission, OGC and OFP in developing a comprehensive enforcement model for the agency.
OGC and OFP have already begun to work in conjunction with field offices in a number of ways that take advantage of the expertise residing among field and headquarters personnel. Some offices have begun to explore how field personnel in particular geographic regions can work together to enhance their overall effectiveness. For example, staff from OGC and OFP met with the leadership of the Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle District Offices (all operating in the Ninth Circuit) to explore how they might more effectively focus on NEP/LEP charges, and to share ideas and techniques for maintaining a manageable charge inventory. OGC and OFP also have coordinated the redeployment of field office staff to work on issues related to case development and litigation.
A continuing issue that requires attention is streamlining the administrative procedures concerning travel and procurement of litigation-related services. Investigative and litigation expenses often arise in response to events beyond the control of the field office (e.g., depositions and other discovery), and must be handled expeditiously and with a minimum of paperwork burden on the staff. Investigative and legal unit staffs should be allowed to devote as much time as possible to enforcement activities rather than administrative procedures or reporting requirements. There currently is a Commission Technology Work Group, made up of field and headquarters staff, that has proposed the purchase of software programs that will dramatically reduce the paperwork and time involved in processing travel and procurement documents. FY 1998 funds and the additional funding for technology proposed by the Administration for EEOC's FY 1999 budget will allow the Commission to make these and other much needed reforms. The Task Forces recommend that OGC, OFP and the Office of Financial Resource Management (OFRM), with field representation, explore additional ways to simplify, streamline, and improve administrative procedures. This group should work with and build upon the work already done by the National Partnership Council Customer Services Work Group, with respect to their recommendations to streamline and improve our travel and procurement procedures.
It should be easy for staff throughout the Commission to tap into the expertise of existing Commission employees in other offices. A helpful start would be to develop and widely distribute directories which provide information about Commission employees concerning their expertise in various legal and technical areas, such as large class investigations or depositions of medical experts. Similarly, the field would benefit from a user-friendly guide explaining the organization and responsibilities of each of the headquarters offices, particularly in light of the recent reorganization. This guide should include sufficient information so that employees needing assistance from headquarters would know whom to contact.
All headquarters offices responsible for assisting field office staff should develop Field Support Plans to enhance responsiveness and accountability to the field. In addition, OGC and OFP should develop a joint work plan detailing how their offices will provide enhanced support to the field in the implementation of the LEPs.
Using the reconfigured LEPs as the critical building blocks for the Commission's national enforcement strategy, a national enforcement strategy group, composed of senior headquarters and field personnel and co-chaired by the General Counsel and the Director of the Office of Field Programs, should meet regularly to examine the enforcement program and to develop strategies for monitoring NEP/LEP implementation, recommending adjustments where necessary, filling in gaps in the national enforcement effort, and facilitating inter-office collaboration and support.
OGC and OFP should form cluster groups including representation from field and headquarters investigative and legal staffs to develop statute-specific strategies to address particular discriminatory practices, law development, or implications of significant court decisions. Each cluster group should designate a member from the field to serve on the national enforcement strategy group.
OGC, OFP, OFRM, and the Office of Human Resources (OHR) should consult with field representatives to explore simplified and streamlined administrative processes.
OHR should develop directories providing information on Commission employees and their areas of expertise. An updated guide explaining the reorganized structure of headquarters offices would also be useful.
The Commission's Office of Research, Information and Planning (ORIP) and, to a lesser degree, the Research and Analytical Services (RAS) division of OGC, both located in headquarters, provide the field offices with expert support services which are particularly helpful in the review of cases involving large numbers of people with regard to data bases, statistical analysis, census information, availability studies, and areas related to industrial psychology and labor economics. While ORIP and RAS can provide valuable pre-litigation and litigation support, the Commission is seeing more cases requiring experts in the field of medicine, financial/accounting and industry-specific areas.
Significant financial resources are required for development of some NEP cases while still in the investigative stage. These could involve retaining court reporter services to record depositions of key witnesses, an expert to create a computer database, a copying service to copy extensive files, or a medical expert in an ADA case. The Task Forces believe that within resource constraints field offices should be given the necessary funds to develop complex NEP cases at the investigative stage.
Historically, field offices have lacked the funding needed to retain outside experts during the pre-litigation investigative or conciliation stages. The ADA has raised this need to a new level given the threshold diagnostic issues which are often present. With the availability of compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the economic status of employers becomes important to litigation assessments as well as assessments of what, if any, relief could reasonably be expected through settlement. Finally, industry-specific experts may be needed to address issues involving such matters as job qualifications, available accommodations, and industry policies and practices. To the extent that the field staff can access expertise in these areas prior to litigation, unnecessary expenses of discovery and more extensive expert fees may be avoided.
Pre-litigation expenditures for such things as medical experts, depositions, and statistical analyses are legitimate, and can save time and money in processing LEP charges and avoid unnecessary litigation expenses. In the past, district offices were allocated budgets for systemic case support. We recommend the development of a similar budget for LEP case support, particularly for complex and ADA cases.
An important principle of reinventing government has been the empowerment of staff at the lowest appropriate level coupled with the elimination of unnecessary layers of review. Consistent with this principle, the Commission used the NEP to delegate to the General Counsel the authority to file litigation in all but the most significant cases. Subsequently, OGC redelegated a large portion of that authority to the Regional Attorneys. The Task Forces believe that the delegation of litigation authority was appropriate and has been exercised prudently by the General Counsel and the Regional Attorneys.
The General Counsel did not redelegate litigation authority for cases arising under the ADA. Although there are good reasons to monitor closely the development of the law under the ADA, the Task Forces believe that novel issues under the ADA will continue to be reviewed by the full Commission under the "developing area of law" category that was not delegated by the Commission to the General Counsel. To the extent that Regional Attorneys wish to bring ADA cases in established areas of law for reasons apparent in the LEPs, the Task Forces do not believe such cases need to be submitted to OGC for approval. After five years of experience with the ADA, it is time for OGC to permit Regional Attorneys to exercise their discretion in this area. Requiring offices to prepare presentation memoranda for each ADA case is an unnecessary hurdle that diverts field resources from other enforcement activities. If problems arise, they can be addressed on an office-by-office basis.
The General Counsel should consider redelegating to all Regional Attorneys the authority to litigate ADA cases consistent with the authority they have been delegated to litigate cases under the other statutes the Commission enforces.
One tool that the Commission uses to ensure the nationwide strategic development of cases in support of its NEP and LEPs is its statutory authorization to intervene in civil actions that are of "general public importance." Recently, the Commission's intervention in several civil actions has come under criticism. Some have questioned whether the EEOC's resources should be spent on cases that already have the benefit of plaintiff's counsel. Others have accused the agency of having insufficient meritorious projects of its own, thereby having to "piggyback" on other parties' litigation.
In reality, the Commission has filed only a small number of interventions. During the past five years, the Commission has approved no more than 30 interventions. At the beginning of June 1997, only seven of the nearly 350 Commission lawsuits were based on interventions. The Commission's intervention decisions in these cases have generally been well-considered and necessary to advance the public interest. Some high profile private lawsuits have been initiated only when it became known that EEOC was engaged in a major investigation. Finally, while private suits often are resolved by confidential settlements, the Commission as a matter of policy makes its settlements public so that the case has the greatest educational value for the public.
The Commission's ability to intervene in a private action is far more restricted than its decision to file a direct suit, both as a matter of law and agency policy. Under Title VII and the ADA, the Commission is required to seek the court's permission to intervene, and must support its request with a certification by the General Counsel that the "case is of general public importance." Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court is to determine whether the intervention will "unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties," and it has broad discretion in making the decision. Similar standards are applied to interventions under the ADEA. Since at least 1980, OGC has had written guidance which sets out the policy factors which would be considered by the agency if a Regional Attorney recommended intervention in a case.
More recently, in 1992, the EEOC set forth standards for Commission intervention in private actions, recognizing the inherent difficulty in articulating precise parameters for such determinations. See Regional Attorney Deskbook at Vol. I, Section VI, p. 30. These standards define "general public importance" as requiring at a minimum legitimate reason to believe that the Commission's presence will make a positive contribution to the litigation, and that the underlying merits of the case present significant issues which are generally broader than the personal claims of an individual aggrieved party, or that some other special circumstances exist to support the General Counsel's assertions that Commission participation is in the public interest.
Moreover, given the Commission's limited resources, decisions to intervene will continue to be very carefully considered. Only where the Commission's involvement adds some unique value to the issues presented in a particular case will the Commission intervene where private counsel is present. Under the NEP, the Commission delegated to the General Counsel the authority to file suit, except in cases which involve major expenditures, address novel legal issues, or appear controversial. Because any proposed intervention would, by its very nature, fall within at least one of these exceptions, the Commission, not the General Counsel, will make the decision on whether to intervene in a particular case. As part of the review process, the Commission will apply to its litigation authorization decision the same intervention criteria adopted by the OGC in its Regional Attorney Deskbook.
While these standards should continue to guide our intervention determinations, the Commission must further acknowledge that the environment of civil rights litigation has changed. EEOC's enforcement efforts coexist, especially in the litigation area, with the considerable efforts of the private bar. Litigation of employment cases by the private bar has grown significantly since the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The availability of compensatory and punitive damages has resulted in an influx of private counsel into an area of practice in which many have little prior experience. The work of the EEOC arguably is more crucial than ever before in this changing landscape. The Commission's role as the lead civil rights agency charged with advancing the rights of individuals in the workplace is markedly different from that of the numerous private attorneys now entering this arena. While the primary interest of private attorneys is to advance the cause of their individual clients, the EEOC must ensure that its litigation actions also advance the interest of the public at large.
In addition to establishing criteria that encompass the foregoing considerations, the General Counsel should provide specific guidance to the field on the relationship between private counsel and the EEOC in intervention actions. This could perhaps best be done by the creation of model agreements between Commission attorneys and private counsel containing standard language to be required, unless special defined circumstances exist, before intervention is authorized.
The Task Forces recommend that the General Counsel review, and if necessary, revise the intervention standards to further explain the standards to be applied and to encompass consideration of the Commission's strategic objectives. The Task Forces further recommend the General Counsel devise model agreements between Commission attorneys and private counsel containing standard language that, unless special defined circumstances exist, would be entered into prior to the Commission's intervention.
The commitment of the EEOC to pursue a strategic enforcement program means that it must seek to leverage its resources in the most effective way. The growth in the scale and complexity of the American economy and the resulting impact on private employers reinforces the need for improved coordination and cooperation between and among the Commission's field offices.
Two steps can be taken by headquarters to advance the development of alliances among field offices. First, OGC and OFP should expeditiously distribute information regarding offices' priorities and accomplishments, including successful models of interoffice coordination and special expertise. Second, the Chairman, through the Awards Program and other incentive systems, should recognize offices that have demonstrated the value of interoffice coordination in achieving our mission.
Offices have also varied in the amount and types of litigation programs they have had over the years. Some offices have consistently had high volume programs, with a good mix of class and smaller cases. Others have had periods of large or significant cases and other periods of smaller cases. Lastly, some offices have had a consistent history of having smaller cases to the exclusion of large or significant cases, and a small number have had few cases of any kind.
With the introduction of the NEP, the LEPs and the PCHP, it is essential that a district office's litigation docket include cases with significant impact. However, there are resource issues which have to be addressed so that offices with very limited litigation programs can develop litigation dockets with a good mix of cases that have individual claimants, cases involving a large number of people and significant policy cases.
Field managers have developed informal networks to supplement their often meager resources. The Task Forces recommend that OGC and OFP augment this informal "back channel" system by encouraging headquarters to routinely provide field offices with information to facilitate interoffice communication and cooperation. At a minimum, this information should include each of the LEPs, and a national docket arrayed by office including all commissioner charges, ADEA and EPA directed investigations, and other major investigations. With the development of a uniform format for the LEPs as recommended in the next section, it should become relatively easy to ascertain which offices have identified common enforcement objectives or are pursuing common targets. Of course, all offices should develop a diversified docket so that all of their constituencies are protected and served.
Another method of bridging the gap is to recognize the current informal system of "lead offices" for geographic or issue expertise purposes. This would encourage offices with good track records to serve as mentors to offices which do not have the same level of experience. In addition, this same approach could be used in situations where offices with similar experience but different amounts of resources could work together in developing or trying certain cases. As offices gain experience in litigating complex cases, there may be less need for offices to support each other in this manner. However, until all offices gain the needed experience, the Commission should continue this informal system of resource management.
Just as attorney collaboration with investigators has enhanced our enforcement results at the office level, increased collaboration among field offices enhances the effectiveness of the overall enforcement program. Recently, OGC and OFP tapped expertise in particular field offices to bolster the resources of another office in pursuing a particular case. This type of creative partnering is a good way to build capacity in offices with fewer resources or less experience, and promotes interoffice familiarity and cooperation which can lead to more opportunities for joint projects and informal consulting. Given that our attorney and investigator staffing levels vary from office to office, both in terms of numbers and experience, it is important to "share the wealth" of our top litigators and investigators so that staff in other offices may learn from them and benefit from their expertise.
Office directors should facilitate details for employees for purposes of staff development and interoffice understanding and collaboration. One way to accomplish this would be to designate certain slots as "rotational slots" when they are filled, so that the people hired would be on a planned rotation through different offices. Given the budgetary implications of extended details, this recommendation makes particular sense in the headquarters, Washington Field Office, and Baltimore District Office areas.
OGC and OFP should distribute a regular publication highlighting office priorities, expertise, and accomplishments, including successful models of inter-office collaboration.
The Chairman, through the Awards Program and other incentives, should recognize offices and employees that have demonstrated the value of inter-office coordination to the success of the agency's mission.
OGC and OFP should share information (e.g., LEPs, litigation docket, Commissioner Charge docket) that will enable field offices to understand what the key case development and litigation initiatives are for each of our district offices.
OGC and OFP should continue innovative sharing of staff and office expertise (e.g., lead office concept, rotational slots) among our offices.
Through details and other methods of sharing staff expertise, OGC and OFP should continue their efforts to provide expertise to offices that may lack the staff depth to pursue particular cases through details and other shared reporting arrangements.
After the reorganization of the old Office of Program Operations, the systemic investigations unit was placed under the direction of the Office of General Counsel along with the systemic litigation unit. With much of the Commission's class investigations and litigation currently being developed by field offices pursuant to their LEPs, it is important for the systemic units within OGC at headquarters to articulate how they plan to supplement the systemic work of the field offices. These units at headquarters could be used, for example, to fill gaps in the NEP that the revised LEPs have not addressed sufficiently. Just as the field investigative and legal staffs are being asked to work collaboratively to develop LEPs as contracts to guide their work, it is time for the systemic headquarters units to develop a joint Systemic Enforcement Plan that will set out the enforcement objectives of these units. The Systemic Enforcement Plan should be modeled on the revised LEPs, including sections on outreach and case development. As with the field LEPs, the Systemic Enforcement Plan should be an operational blueprint for the enforcement objectives for the systemic units and should set forth specified results for which they are accountable.
The systemic units in headquarters/OGC shall jointly develop for submission to the Commission a Systemic Enforcement Plan to establish priorities and goals similar to what is required of field offices in their LEPs.
Field offices' staffing levels must be taken into consideration in setting realistic goals for LEPs. Those characteristics include the number of investigators, the number of attorneys, the availability of attorneys to area and local offices, the support staff available to investigative and legal enforcement units, and the experience and skill levels of personnel across the board. However, the Task Forces believe that every field office can and should have an effective investigative and legal enforcement program that includes a well balanced litigation docket, even within the constraints of existing resources.
While the Administration has proposed an increase in field staff to help reduce the Commission's charge inventory, many of our field offices will experience staff shortages in a number of key areas such as support staff, paralegals and attorneys. In making future staffing decisions, headquarters should take attorney/investigator ratios into account, recognizing that a balance between investigators, attorneys, paralegals and support staff will lead to a more effective enforcement program. Experience has demonstrated that it is significantly more difficult to develop a successful litigation program with only a handful of attorneys in a district office. While some of our most severely understaffed legal units recently received authority to hire new attorneys, the need for a "critical mass" of trial attorneys should continue to guide future staffing decisions. It is important to recognize that a viable litigation program fosters employer interest in mediation and other non-adjudicatory means of case resolution. It should also be recognized that attorneys play an integral part in case identification and charge development in many field offices. There needs to be a sufficient number of attorneys in EEOC's field offices to provide guidance to field investigators while conducting a viable litigation program.
To the extent practicable, the agency should continue to prioritize filling field positions over headquarters, considering attorney/investigator ratios, along with a recognition that a balance between investigators, attorneys, paralegals, and support staff will promote a more effective enforcement program.
In FY 1997, the agency was able to commit approximately $1.6 million to training, the largest sum dedicated to this function in many years. The Task Forces applaud this initiative, and recommend that training remain a priority for the foreseeable future. Given this substantial commitment, it is imperative to leverage this investment in employee productivity and morale, and in agency efficiency. The Task Forces also commend OHR's Training and Employee Development Team (TEDT) for the exceptional training programs they have presented.
Currently, employees prepare their own Individual Development Plans (IDPs) and seek training opportunities that are useful to their work. Supervisory approval of these plans is based on whether the training will make the employee more proficient in his or her job.
Since the LEPs prioritize strategic enforcement activities, the Task Forces believe that training should continue to be designed to enhance the enforcement capabilities of Commission staff. When IDPs are approved and training is provided for employees, training which clearly advances the enforcement objectives articulated in the NEPs and LEPs should be given priority. In that way, the Commission can assure that its limited resources are being used to achieve its core objectives.
Training priorities should be based on commonly identified needs, both agency-wide and within individual district offices, the nexus between the NEP/LEPs and the proposed training program, and the extent to which the priorities contribute to the development of skills necessary for our strategic approach to developing significant cases. Accordingly, we suggest that, beginning with the next funding cycle, the vast majority of training opportunities be funded only to the extent that they demonstrably improve the quality of the agency's enforcement activities, whether investigative or legal. To be most effective, these plans should be approached on a multi-year basis.
In determining how to most efficiently provide training, it is essential that the Commission assess the cost effectiveness of different approaches. Local training programs generally cost less than regional or national programs, and may be more easily tailored to individual office needs. Local training programs are portable, can be presented at convenient times thereby minimizing disruptions in workflow, and can be used repeatedly for new groups of employees or as refresher or advanced courses for employees who already possess familiarity with the subject matter. A number of field offices have developed their own successful local staff training programs, at times in tandem with local stakeholders such as regional ABA/EEOCliaison committee members or NELA chapters. The Task Forces recommend that information about these programs be shared by OFP with other offices as Creative Strategies. (See Appendix C.)
Locally sponsored training programs capitalize on the expertise of the Commission's own personnel. For example, in-house programs on subjects such as interviewing techniques, and gathering relevant evidence can be delivered by experienced investigators and lawyers. Legal staff should provide regular updates on the statutes enforced by the Commission for investigators and other field personnel. This has the added benefit, in the context of changing law and LEP needs, for regular discussion of substantive law and the cases the office needs to develop. Finally, local training programs reemphasize that regardless of headquarters funding, each district office should provide ongoing training opportunities for agency employees.
The Commission has produced a number of highly successful national training programs. While more costly than local efforts, these programs foster cross pollination of ideas, and informal discussions of programs and initiatives that work to further the agency's mission of eradicating discrimination in the workplace. ( See Appendix C, Creative Strategies, for examples of successful national training programs.) Regional meetings are particularly effective for courses on substantive issues, since the material can be modified to reflect the development of the law in a particular judicial circuit.
Because the Commission's training needs far exceed available resources, the agency must be both strategic and creative in developing training opportunities for its employees. The Administration's budget proposal for FY 1999 calls for an increase in the number of investigators to help with inventory reduction, an increase in technology expenditures and the expansion of EEOC's mediation program. Each of these additions to the Commission's enforcement program will require the Commission to develop substantial training programs to ensure that we will be optimizing our resources.
Task Force members consulted with a number of outside stakeholders including members of the ABA's EEO Liaison Committee, litigating attorneys with civil rights groups, employee organizations, the defense bar, and with EEOC headquarters and field staff on ways to enhance training programs without incurring substantial costs. Many of these stakeholder groups offered to work with the agency to help provide effective training for our staff. The Task Forces appreciate the offer of outside groups to assist in training, and believe that exploring these joint training opportunities is in the best interest of the Commission.
EEOC's sister agencies can be excellent sources of low or no-cost training. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Training Academy and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in the past have provided training on interviewing techniques and case analysis. The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys at the Department of Justice has been an excellent source of training in trial skills and case management. Both the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the Department of the Air Force are well known for the quality of their ADR programs. Some agencies might grant access to their programs in exchange for access to Commission programs.
The Liaison Committees of the ABA Labor Section's EEO committee are comprised of management and plaintiffs' counsel who desire to strengthen their ties to EEOC staff. Many members of this organization are prominent in the EEO bar. Judicious use of these groups and their expertise can substantially further our training efforts. One district office has already tapped its local Liaison Committee for speakers to lead training on topics including "How to Assess Damages," "How to Present Medical Witnesses," and "How to Conduct Onsite Investigations."
Similar expertise is available through most state and local bar associations, which often offer low cost continuing legal education programs that would benefit all levels of Commission staff. Individual members of the plaintiffs' bar constitute a valuable training resource. They possess expertise that the agency can ill afford to ignore. Many are happy to share their talents with EEOC personnel, especially if they can obtain access to Commission programs in return.
The Task Forces strongly recommend that OGC and OFP encourage all District Directors and Regional Attorneys to work in concert with their respective liaison groups to arrange training sessions for their offices on topics of interest to lawyers, paralegals and investigators. Such programs might be delivered on a regional basis to encompass issues of concern or common interest within particular federal circuits.
The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs has produced training programs for three state FEPAs that cover basic investigatory training and include annotated manuals. The Lawyers' Committee also has conducted many trial workshops on EEO issues. These workshops focus on the acquisition and sharpening of trial skills, and sometimes use federal judges in simulated courtroom settings.
The Task Forces recommend that the Commission explore cooperative ventures with the Lawyers' Committee and other civil rights advocacy groups such as the National Employment Lawyers' Association (NELA). Certain groups have expertise with particular issues such as immigration-related job discrimination, or particular ethnic communities that can enhance access to groups under-served by EEOC. Jointly produced courses and workshops are a productive way to strengthen the local office's ties to neighboring bar and advocacy organizations.
In 1995, the Commission approved several recommendations calling for increased cooperation between the agency and the FEPAs. As a result, the Commission has joined with the FEPAs to create a joint training committee. In addition to pooling scarce resources by sharing the expense of course development, the work of this committee should also result in EEOC and the FEPAs developing a more consistent approach on common issues. The Task Forces believe that these joint ventures hold substantial advantages by working toward common solutions, strengthening ties between respective staff, and laying the groundwork for other cooperative efforts.
This report has identified many ways in which the Commission can leverage its scarce training resources in order to develop a more efficient and productive staff. However, the Task Forces believe that each of these identified resources can in turn be strengthened by a coordinated approach that takes advantage of each opportunity. Thus, we suggest that the Commission's Revolving Fund Division, in conjunction with TEDT, consider establishing an EEOC Training Academy.
By compiling lists of training opportunities and disseminating them to Commission personnel, the Revolving Fund Division and TEDT can assist field offices in identifying quality, low cost training opportunities. These could include introductory courses for new staff, refresher courses for experienced hands, and specialized training for enforcement, legal and investigative personnel to supplement the training efforts provided by each district office. They could include low cost continuing education seminars, as well as more advanced training such as the well-received trial advocacy course developed by OGC and field legal unit staff. The Task Forces applaud the Revolving Fund Division's exploration of how to develop training courses that can be marketed to other Federal agencies, FEPAs, and the bar.
Training opportunities should reflect the objectives of the NEP and the LEPs. Priorities should be based on commonly-identified needs, both agency-wide and within individual district, area and local offices, the nexus between the proposed training and the NEP/LEPs, and the extent to which the proposed training contributes to the development of skills enhancing our enforcement mission.
The Task Forces recommend that headquarters training offices establish an EEOC Training Academy with suggested courses for all levels of employee and explore cooperative training programs with sister federal agencies and with civil rights organizations such as the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the National Employment Lawyers' Association and the ABA.
Field offices, which bear the primary responsibility for training their employees, should explore and develop training opportunities with interested groups including local Liaison Committees of the ABA Labor Section's EEO Committee, state and local bar associations, local NELA chapters, and with the state FEPAs.
As the business and legal worlds adopt and adapt to new communications and information management technologies, EEOC must examine its current status and plan for the future if it wishes to remain a preeminent federal government civil rights agency.
In 1991, former Chairman Kemp initiated the development of an agency-wide Information Resources Management Plan to guide decisions regarding the acquisition and management of information resources. Task forces were charged with identifying short and long term critical information needs.
Despite some promising initial steps including installation of an electronic bulletin board system and a pilot local area network (LAN) in headquarters, the modernization program was hampered by a persistent lack of funds and inattention during the transition to the current Administration. Moreover, in the years since these needs were first identified, the pace of technological innovation has advanced so rapidly that previously identified goals and objectives have been rendered obsolete.
Under former Chairman Casellas' leadership, considerable progress has been made in the development of a comprehensive information resources management plan, and in the acquisition of information technology. Key network applications have been installed in headquarters and in many field offices, and the agency opened a homepage on the World Wide Web, providing direct public access to Commission documents and informational material. The Commission finally achieved its long term goal of acquiring a desktop computer for each employee. Unfortunately, because purchases were spread over a number of years, the desktop equipment varies in specifications and capabilities, further impeding plans to upgrade the agency to a state-of-the-art computer operating system.
Last year, the Commission established an agency-wide Technology Steering Committee (TSC) to address and determine the Agency's technology needs, long-range information management plans, and system development priorities. TSC serves as an advisory group to the Chairman on technology planning and resource allocation decisions, and functions through its subcommittees on data information needs, FEPA technology, software standardization, and the roles and training of computer specialists.
The Commission also has deployed a new Charge Data System Legal Case Management System (LCMS). This application runs on the Charge Data System (CDS) computer and is currently installed in all EEOC district offices. The major feature of LCMS is that it can be used both to manage various investigative and legal unit activities and produce reports needed to provide OGC and OFP with sufficient data required for monitoring nationwide enforcement activity. In addition to producing regular productivity reports, LCMS can also be used to create the day-to-day reports for use in the field, such as case history summaries and tickler (assignment) logs.
While allowing legal units to pull in current CDS data to avoid reentry of current charging party and respondent information, this "bridge" to the Integrated Mission System (IMS) enables administrative and legal units to correct or modify charge data, including changes in case categorization under the PCHP. It enables the field offices to store data concerning charging party allegations in a new format that structures statute, basis and issue data in a way that facilitates investigation and litigation preparation. LCMS also allows field offices to associate more than one charge to each case, overcoming an existing barrier to linking charges together to form a single case. While LCMS represents a significant improvement over the current CDS, field personnel cannot directly access the national data base, and because the agency lacks connectivity, inter-office requests for data and data analysis must be channeled through headquarters.
Despite this progress, the Task Forces' consultations with field office personnel revealed several areas of continuing concern. The continued lack of a fully integrated information system requires the field to respond to sometimes conflicting and overlapping data requests. Offices find it difficult to purchase "off-the-shelf" software for data analysis and case management because of possible incompatibility with the proposed integrated system. OIRM personnel are stretched so thin that some offices lack even rudimentary training on the limited technological resources currently at the Commission's disposal. These concerns are being addressed by TSC and its subcommittees in the coming months.
Without minimizing the substantial gains made in the past few years, the Task Forces have been concerned that the Commission's technological focus has been limited to data processing and management, with insufficient attention being devoted to identifying and deploying on-line tools that can enhance the efficiency and productivity of the Commission's employees. Perennial budget shortfalls have forced the agency into the unpalatable choice of maintaining adequate staffing levels or developing the technological infrastructure to support its enforcement activities. An infusion of funds earmarked for technology would enable the agency to complete the deployment of the local and wide area networks, install collaborative systems such as Groupwise or Lotus Notes, and complete the integration of mission data with administrative, financial and personnel information. A document management and retrieval system would permit searchable access to investigative reports, briefs, motions, and pleadings now scattered throughout our many offices, and would allow offices to work together on cases while minimizing travel expenses. These steps would enhance inter- and intra-office communication, eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic and administrative hurdles, allow for greater sharing of information and expertise, and perhaps even provide enhanced training possibilities through easily shared interactive computer modules. These productivity gains should speed charge investigations and improve the agency's ability to manage its inventory, allow for more focused case evaluation and development, and promote the essential transformation into a strategic, national law enforcement agency.
The Administration has proposed an additional nine and a half million dollars for technology for the Commission in FY 1999. This increase in funding will enable the Commission to introduce some of the much needed changes described above. The additional funding for the Commission set forth in the President's budget for FY 1999 will enable the Commission to develop a more effective NEP that provides, through technological advances, enhanced customer service and greater sharing of information among our offices.
To ensure that the Commission's technology initiatives leverage our limited staff resources, the Task Forces recommend that the TSC consult with a broad spectrum of Commission employees to gain a thorough knowledge of our work and procedures to guide the design and development of a useful technological infrastructure. The Task Forces encourage the TSC to consult with similar federal agencies that have recently installed or upgraded their computer systems.
Should Congress authorize the funds recommended by the President in the budget he proposed for the Commission in FY 1999, the Task Forces recommend the continued integration of our mission and administrative systems, along with the earliest possible implementation of collaborative tools, including completion of the local and wide area networks, litigation and document management systems, and universal access to the Internet.
The Commission, by approving its NEP in 1996, established a nationwide policy for strategic enforcement. The LEP is the foundation of the Commission's strategic approach. As originally envisioned by the Commission, the LEP should set forth each district office's strategy for: (1) prioritizing local issues to be pursued through investigations or judicial enforcement; (2) maintaining a manageable inventory of charges; and (3) addressing the needs of under-served communities through outreach and education. However, due to a number of factors, the LEPs have been of limited utility as tools for strategic development of district office activities or for establishing the Commission's policy on a local level. The current LEPs vary greatly from office to office and do not serve as a reliable or effective tool for charting the strategic course for the agency's enforcement program. The LEPs as currently designed and utilized should be recast to better assist offices in establishing enforcement goals that must be realized.
The LEP as designed will act as an operational, strategic contract between a district office and headquarters that details specific goals and measurable results that the field offices must meet. The key to the agency's new approach under the PCHP and the NEP is balance, and the LEPs are intended to assist the offices to use strategic resources to pursue cases that have the greatest impact on discrimination, to efficiently reduce the inventory of weak cases, and to identify the types of outreach and education that would have the greatest impact on the agency's mission. This section sets forth recommendations on how to strengthen the LEPs and transform them into truly operational enforcement blueprints.
Under the NEP, each LEP is to contain "specific goals and objectives...tailored to reflect the legal and factual issues specific to the communities served by each office, as well as each office's resources" in the above three areas. LEPs also are to include an implementation document that "describe[s] the local office's strategy for utilizing its resources and gives] Headquarters information critical for planning, staffing, and the allocation of resources to the field." The implementation document, as initially set forth by the Commission in the NEP, was specifically required to:
"(1) prioritize and justify the issues identified in the LEPs as to severity and need for local impact, taking into account industries, constituencies and geographic areas involved;
(2) identify pending charges/suits or proposed charges/suits, which fall within the local priority list and indicating those that would have the greatest impact;
(3) identify which of those current charges/suits can be pursued with available resources, as well as others that could be pursued if additional resources were available; and
(4) describe how the plan results will be achieved, including time lines."
The agency's first generation of LEPs has been in place for over one year, but it is clear that they have not consistently served the purpose intended by the Commission in the NEP. The LEPs are so different in format that they are difficult to use. In addition, some viewed the LEP as an aspirational document, while others treated it as a contract for performance.
The diminished utility of the LEPs was due in large part to the fact that this was a new approach to strategic law enforcement and headquarters did not provide sufficient guidance. Field offices were not given specific guidance regarding their length or format, and there were no benchmarks established. Some examples of the type of information that should have been included are:
Subsection (1): "Our third priority is to develop national origin harassment cases in the retail industry based on information from constituency groups that...."
Subsection (2): "The case with the largest impact is a commissioner charge against XYZ Corp. involving priority issue number 1. It will probably have a large influence on the industry by establishing that a particular practice violates Title VII and will result in a change to the company's leave policy. Potential relief of $1M for 30 people."
Subsection (3): "We can pursue all the cases listed above in Subsection B, except as follows:The legal unit cannot file suit against ABC at this time because.... We cannot develop the QRS charge this year because...."
Subsection (4): We anticipate completing the charges and suits listed above in subsection B, as follows :By third quarter:Cause findings will be issued in the following charges:
Discovery will be completed (or trial is scheduled) in the following suits....
A number of other unforeseen factors also made the LEPs more difficult to utilize for field and headquarters offices charged with assessing LEP effectiveness. First, the agency's data base needs to be modified to closely track LEP charges and suits. Second, OFP and OGC have used different formulas for reporting the amount of benefits obtained by individuals as a result of the agency's enforcement efforts. As a result, it is not possible to capture accurately the total monetary benefits recovered by LEP activity. (See Appendix B, Reports and Common Definitions Required for LEP Activity).
Another factor that has limited the effectiveness of the LEPs is that the measures used to assess office performance are not directly linked to LEP activity. Historically, the agency has measured its success simply by counting objective factors. This measurement of performance is inadequate today because: (1) the indicia largely focus on numerical assessments related to processing of the general inventory (e.g., the overall cause rate, the number of merit factor resolutions, the number of resolutions, pending inventory, number of suits filed, number of class suits), rather than on NEP/LEP activity (e.g., the development of charges/suits with NEP issues, the development of NEP/LEP charges, etc.); (2) the agency measures interim processing activities (e.g., overall cause rate, etc.) and does not include the results obtained remedying discrimination (e.g., overall back pay, number of persons receiving benefits, the value of prospective and other types of relief, changed discriminatory policies and quality of results); (3) OGC and OFP measure different things, rather than agency-wide indicia that apply to our field office investigative and legal units collectively; and (4) there is no minimum set of performance indicators that an office must meet to be deemed successful.
A major challenge for the agency is the development of better methods to assess whether we are accomplishing our mission. Measuring the reduction of inventory is important, but it must be balanced with the results obtained from the resolution of LEP cases. Ultimately, it is not the raw number of cases processed, but the effect of those cases on discrimination that is most important. We must determine how to evaluate the impact of our enforcement on changes to discriminatory practices in the agency's new era of strategic enforcement. It is the Task Forces' strong belief that defining and measuring the appropriate outcomes and results of NEP/LEP implementation are key factors that will steer us organizationally toward our mission's goals. Every EEOC office, regardless of its size, experience level, or amount of available resources, must be held responsible for producing a balanced enforcement program, which includes managing its case flow and producing effective settlements and litigation.
OGC, OFP and our field offices are now in the process of recommending revisions to the format and type of information that should be contained in the next round of LEPs. The Task Forces have carefully considered this issue after receiving considerable input from agency staff and external stakeholders. What follows are some observations and recommendations on this topic.
As a change from past practice, Commission review of the LEPs is important for both practical and symbolic reasons. It provides a clear statement of the importance placed on the LEPs, which are developed on a district by district basis. The Commissioners are able to contribute to the LEP review process based on the diversity of their geographic, professional and demographic backgrounds. Historically, it has been hard for the Commission to adequately make use of this resource, and it was under former Chairman Casellas that the involvement of Commissioners in strategizing management approaches has helped propel the Commission to greater possibilities and organizational flexibility.
While some are concerned with whether the review of the LEPs represents "operations" or "policy," nonetheless, if the Commission views the LEPs as providing the direction for the agency's enforcement program, then the Commission should take responsibility for that direction by both providing input into the development of the LEPs and reviewing them. Although it is true that the LEPs address issues vital to Commission operations, it is also true that these documents set forth a framework that will guide how local enforcement decisions will be made. To the extent that the Commission continues to vote on individual cases from individual field offices that have strategic significance, it is logical that the Commission would review the documents that will guide which individual cases make their way to the Commission. If the LEPs are to assume the heightened role contemplated in this report, it is appropriate and desirable for them to bear the stamp of Commission review.
Comments from District Directors and Regional Attorneys suggested there was a consensus on the need for more consistency in the formulation of LEPs. Opinions among the District Directors and Regional Attorneys were mixed regarding whether to modify current plans or to start over with a completely new document. It was clear, however, that maintaining the status quo was untenable. It was generally agreed that LEPs, in order to serve the Commission's original intent, must provide concrete, realistic information in a synthesized form that can easily be digested by the intended readers. OGC and OFP are currently considering modifications to the LEP format, and it is hoped that they will submit these recommendations to the Commission for review in the near future.
The Task Forces agree that there should be a uniform LEP format to make the document more useful. Some of the factors the Task Forces think should be included in the new format are:
The District Directors, in a joint memorandum to the Task Forces, state that the LEPs should contain "goals, objectives and benchmarks" and that the information included in the LEPs should "provide mechanisms for evaluating performance which will be updated and reviewed annually." The Task Forces concur with the District Directors' suggestion that LEPs can be a valuable tool for evaluating performance of our field offices on LEP-related matters.
The Task Forces agree that LEPs should be individually developed taking into account an office's strengths and weaknesses. We reject the "one size fits all" approach to the planning process. To require LEPs that compel the same level of performance in all areas would fail because of the differences in our field offices in terms of staff, demographics, resources, and other characteristics. Although discussed elsewhere in this report, it bears repeating here that the performance of field offices under their LEPs will be enhanced by improving headquarters ability to provide leadership, planning, resources and other support for the field.
The Task Forces also believe that it would greatly assist the agency at all levels to have a more accurate process for evaluating an office's performance by building into each LEP a set of indicia for success that applies not only to the attorney and investigative functions, but to the office as a whole. Such indicia should focus on NEP/LEP and related enforcement activity (e.g., development of charges/suits with NEP/LEP issues, development of A-1 and A-2 charges, etc.), measure the results obtained remedying discrimination (e.g, back pay, number of persons receiving benefits, the value of prospective and other types of relief, changed discriminatory policies), and include both quantitative and qualitative factors. If "interim step" processing indicia are used, they should focus on NEP/LEP activity, and include suits filed and resolved, "significant" suits filed and resolved, class suits filed and resolved, cause cases conciliated or sued upon, the balance of settlements, trials and summary judgments, the balance of the litigation docket, visibility of the enforcement program, proactive outreach, positive media relations, achieving and maintaining a manageable charge workload, development of A-1 individual and class cause cases, and A-1 individual and class suits. The Task Forces believe that each LEP should contain the Commission's minimal expectations for that office's program, and that these should be set out with specificity. No field office can be viewed as meeting NEP/LEP goals if they do not have a balanced enforcement program -- one that maintains an appropriate charge inventory, a reasonable number of settlements and a substantial, balanced litigation docket.
OGC and OFP must provide support to offices preparing LEP proposals and will need to participate actively in negotiations with field offices about the content of their LEPs. District Directors and Regional Attorneys already are working with OGC and OFP leadership on guidance relating to LEP development and will need to work closely with them when they construct their LEPs. Given the significant changes being proposed for the new LEPs, OGC and OFP will need to provide guidance and support to offices requiring assistance.
It should be Commission policy that LEPs are strategic contracts between each office enforcement team (investigative and legal) and headquarters (the Commission, OGC and OFP) that provide specific goals and measurable results linked to the agency's NEP/LEP indicia of success (i.e., measurements of NEP and related activity, including the results obtained in remedying discrimination), as discussed above and in Appendix B, Reports and Common Definitions Required for LEP Activity.
LEPs also are statements of Commission policy for each office regarding the local strategy to: (1) prioritize local issues to be pursued through administrative or judicial enforcement; (2) maintain a manageable inventory of charges; and (3) address the needs of under-served populations through outreach and education. Since LEPs are the key to success of the Commission's NEP, they are, in this regard, policy statements of the Commission, and as such, should be voted on by the Commission.
OGC and OFP should review the LEPs prior to submission to the Commission for review, and should, after consulting with submitting offices, provide the Commission with joint detailed recommendations for approval or modification. OGC and OFP should also offer a joint analysis of the LEP's effect nationwide. OGC and OFP should be assisted in the LEP review process by an Advisory Panel made up of personnel from headquarters and District, Area and Local offices and comprised of a cross section of staff (i.e., not limited to top management).
The LEPs should follow a uniform format that contains sufficient detail to evaluate an office's use of its resources in obtaining results in LEP/NEP cases. Information should be included that describes the plan's link between its enforcement priorities and its outreach and training activities.
The Commission should adopt the NEP/LEP definitions and issue reports on NEP/LEP activity as discussed in Appendix B.
OGC and OFP should, in consultation with the district office, set achievable annual performance goals in each office's LEP to ensure that a baseline level of performance is achieved by all organizational components, tailored to the particular office's situation. Progress in achieving such goals should be reviewed and assessed annually, regardless of the time period covered by the plan. An office should not be considered to be minimally successful unless it has achieved balanced results in developing and resolving NEP/LEP cases (both in investigation and litigation), in settlement of investigative charges, and in maintaining a manageable inventory.
The Task Forces anticipate that field offices unable to develop a broad-based LEP program from charges filed with the Commission will use Commissioner charges or directed investigations to further develop their LEPs. The CPTF Report and the subsequent PCHP reaffirmed that Commissioner charges and directed investigations are integral to EEOC's law enforcement mission and are an important complement to enforcement of the law through individually-initiated charges. Those documents recognized that some incidents of illegal discrimination will not be the subject of an individual charge but, nonetheless, constitute serious violations of the laws that should be the subject of EEOC enforcement action. For example, there may be cases of egregious sexual harassment where the victims of discrimination do not want to file a charge for fear of retaliation.
Subsequent to the CPTF Report, streamlined procedures for the approval and investigation of Commissioner charges were instituted. While the number of Commissioner charges decreased shortly after the changes in the procedures, they have since risen to the level they were prior to the changes.
As expected, the methods used by offices to identify Commissioner charges, as well as the sources of Commissioner charges, vary greatly. The Compliance Manual sets forth suggested sources of Commissioner charges, and offices appear to be using these sources and others. These sources include the media, other agencies, civil rights organizations, union and trade association officials, employment agencies, and outreach to under-served communities.
Field office staff play a fundamental role in the development of Commissioner charges and directed investigations. Investigators may be involved in the identification of such charges and are always involved in their investigation. In most offices legal unit attorneys are involved in the development of Commissioner charges. Several offices stated that they identified Commissioner charges as "A-1" charges and accordingly consulted with legal unit staff both prior to the request for issuance of the charge and during the investigation. One office indicated that the District Director and Regional Attorney must agree to all requests for issuance of Commissioner charges and that initiation implies joint support for the investigative responsibilities.
The Task Forces conclude that to meet its NEP and LEP goals the EEOC must take full advantage of the Commissioner charge and directed investigation authority. Commissioner charges and directed investigations provide useful and essential vehicles to fill in gaps in the Commission's or District Office's docket. In addition, there are some field offices where there might be a greater need for the aggressive development of Commissioner charges or directed investigations by virtue of unique features in that region. Moreover, some communities are less likely to file charges for any number of reasons, including suspicion of government agencies and lack of knowledge of the EEOC's activities. Commissioner charges and directed investigations can be a vehicle for ensuring that discriminatory practices affecting these groups are addressed.
The Task Forces recommend that headquarters reemphasize the importance of Commissioner charges and directed investigations to the EEOC's enforcement program and encourage field offices to use these tools to fill gaps in their LEPs. Field offices should periodically inform the Commissioner who has signed the charge of its status. Because Commissioner charges necessarily will be LEP charges, the recommendations of the office's investigative and legal staff should be provided for the Commissioner's review.
The NEP recognized that public outreach and education is crucial to achieving the Commission's fundamental mission of eradicating employment discrimination. Within existing resources, the NEP encouraged that public education, outreach, and technical assistance be conducted at both the national and local level in order to support and enhance the Commission's enforcement activities. The Commission further directed that each LEP include an evaluation and strategy to address the provision of services to under-served populations and geographic regions.
The Commission recognizes that one of the most effective ways of preventing employment discrimination is educating employers about the requirements of the employment laws enforced by the Commission and what they must do to comply with these laws.
With the advent of the Revolving Fund and Technical Assistance Program Seminars (TAPS), the Commission has stepped up its efforts to educate employers and facilitate voluntary compliance with anti-discrimination statutes. All of our field offices now deliver at least two TAPS each year to educate employers about their obligations under employment laws enforced by the Commission. Last fiscal year, the Commission held 43 TAPS programs attended by 6,089 individuals. There also has been an effort by our field offices to reach smaller employers who may not have the staff available to attend our TAPS program. For example, one office developed an outreach program with the Small Business Administration specifically designed to educate small employers.
In addition, since the adoption of the NEP and subsequent approval of the LEPs, a number of field offices have taken steps to establish closer ties with community groups and under-served populations to enhance their effectiveness and make their LEPs more responsive to community priorities. These offices have recognized the importance of creating an outreach program that is clearly tied to the goals of the NEP and their LEP. Outreach must not be viewed as simply giving speeches to stakeholder groups. An important component of outreach is working with stakeholder communities to ensure that the Commission understands their individual priorities and works with them in developing an office's LEP.
The Task Forces are aware that many field offices have developed a number of innovative programs to develop and deliver an effective outreach program designed to reach the under-served populations within their regions and to provide effective educational programs for employers, labor organizations and diverse protected groups. A number of field offices have held Open Houses at their District, Area and Local Offices to increase their visibility in their communities. There are examples of offices that have identified employment problems in particular industries and have worked with community organizations, including those organizations that represented individuals seeking employment or already employed in these industries, to seek to resolve these problems. In addition, some field offices have worked with state and local agencies in conducting community outreach programs. The Appendix on Creative Strategies contains a more detailed discussion of some creative outreach efforts and gives contact information for those interested in learning more about these efforts.
Offices that have successfully used outreach have recognized that community organizations in their district can be the "eyes and ears for the EEOC" and can greatly assist in identifying issues for development and individuals who can help in that process. Significantly, field staff have learned that community organizations can provide critical information in projecting future issues that need to be addressed and the planning needed to confront them. Offices that have been successful at outreach have recognized that building relationships with community organizations is valuable because these relationships will lead to enhanced credibility and increased trust in the EEOC. They recognize that establishing these relationships will not happen overnight and will require sustained, long term efforts. These offices view outreach as a method of filling gaps in their LEPs. They have used outreach to target particular communities in their region that do not necessarily generate high numbers of charges, but in which discrimination is undoubtedly occurring.
Some field offices have also recognized the critical role that the media plays in outreach. They have found that using mainstream media alone is sometimes insufficient. Rather, an outreach plan must ask: What are the minority TV/radio stations and newspapers in the region? Who are the contacts? What influential minority press exists? These offices encourage staff to meet with minority media experts to help plan a media outreach strategy. This may include talk shows, featured presentations on employment discrimination, "know your rights" call-in shows or columns, and other media vehicles.
OFP also has made progress in improving the coordination of the outreach program. It has revised and automated outreach reporting requirements in an attempt to capture the full extent of the field offices' outreach efforts and has reorganized its headquarters' outreach activities to improve outreach coordination. A five-day conference was held last fiscal year at headquarters that, for the first time, brought together field program analysts for sessions on education, technical assistance and outreach. This conference included a session on reaching under-served populations.
The Commission also has taken steps to provide that its materials are accessible to individuals with disabilities and has translated its educational materials for non-English speaking populations. The Commission is committed to ensuring that it provides educational materials that are accessible to the populations we must reach to educate them about their employment rights.
The Task Forces recognize the significant efforts that field offices and headquarters have made to improve the Commission's outreach program. Nonetheless, there is still a need to ensure that our outreach program advances the goals of the NEP and the LEPs. The Commission must not lose sight of the need to reach under-served victims of discrimination in our outreach efforts. Historically, workers in the U.S. have been unaware of their general labor and employment rights. Not surprisingly, many acts or practices of discrimination go unchallenged. Moreover, recent demographic, geographic and industrial changes in the U.S. population and economy have produced numerous under-served populations, including isolated communities, where much discrimination occurs. The EEOC has only begun to develop relationships with these communities and must build credibility among many of them.
While some field office activities have demonstrated that progress in outreach is being made, other offices' activities reveal the small role that outreach plays in their enforcement programs. Outreach efforts need to be targeted to the particular needs of employers and protected groups in their respective regions. Moreover, headquarters must ensure that its outreach efforts sufficiently complement and support those of the field.
OGC and OFP should ensure that field offices develop and maintain an outreach program that is linked to LEP issues and constituencies and that effectively addresses the needs of our stakeholders, including employers, unions, individual workers and job applicants. Particular attention should be directed towards working with under-served populations, and filling gaps in LEP implementation and case development.
The Commission has received strong support from external and internal stakeholders for its strategic enforcement approach and the Priority Charge Handling Procedures (PCHP). In most instances, agency staff in the field and headquarters have successfully implemented the proposed reforms. While progress has been made, there are clearly some areas where the Commission needs to fine tune our procedures.
To assess the effectiveness of the PCHP, the Task Forces surveyed District, Area and Local Office Directors, and Regional Attorneys, and solicited comments from investigators, trial attorneys, managers and support personnel in the field and headquarters. (See Appendix D, Stakeholder Input to Task Forces.) In addition, the Task Forces also visited a number of district and area offices to meet with field staffs to gather information on how the PCHP guidance was being implemented in their jurisdictions and reviewed the PCHP-related operational data and reports produced through the Charge Data System (CDS).
Field offices have effectively taken advantage of the structural and enforcement program flexibility called for by the PCHP. This operational flexibility has enabled field offices to capitalize fully on the strengths of their current staffs in furtherance of the agency's mission. Many offices, for example, have used a variety of special projects to better manage pending workloads. Other offices have formed specialized investigative or enforcement units, such as hybrid attorney/investigator teams, dedicated teams, strike forces, and hybrid charge processing units, to develop and pursue A cases, with a strong emphasis on early and ongoing cooperation between investigative and legal staffs.
Since the time of PCHP implementation, the Commission has substantially reduced its inventory from over 111,000 charges to slightly over 65,000 charges, a reduction of over 40%. While reducing the inventory by over 40% was a major achievement that was realized over a short period of time, inventory management and reduction should continue to be a matter of focus, especially for the offices that have been less successful at using the new procedures. If this is not done, the promising inventory reduction progress that has been made may be lost.
To realize the PCHP goals, field offices must aggressively categorize, develop, investigate, settle, and litigate cases, while maintaining a balance in the case flow and inventory. Where it is necessary, assistance from other EEOC staff, whether from headquarters or other field offices, should be provided to bring individual office caseloads down to a manageable level.
The original Charge Processing Task Force Report stated:
For priority handling procedures to be successful, intake must be viewed as a crucial point in the investigation and must involve a thorough interview of the charging party by experienced personnel who will make a recommendation for disposition of the charge.An essential element of the Commission's LEP-based enforcement program is high quality, thorough intake procedures. Charge categorization and other critical case handling decisions are key to the successful implementation of the new procedures. At intake, the agency's effectiveness is measured, in large part, by the level and quality of service provided to those who are affected by the statutes we enforce, including both charging parties and respondents.
Two major models of intake are being used in our field offices. One model is a dedicated intake unit with a number of investigators permanently assigned to the unit. An advantage of the dedicated unit is that it provides a level of consistency and specialization in the intake and categorization of charges. The other model is an intake unit which employs a rotational system; namely, a system where all investigators serve for a period of time at regularly scheduled intervals. The rotational system ensures that all investigators are well-versed in the PCHP principles as applied to intake. These intake models and the results they have achieved should be analyzed and assessed by OFP, so that the information can be shared with field offices across the country. (See Appendix C, Creative Strategies, for examples of intake models and forms.)
Field offices have developed a wide variety of materials to educate potential charging parties (PCPs) and charging parties about the Commission's new charge handling procedures and how to file a charge. A majority of offices have developed packets containing this information, while others have prepared informational videos. Some offices have had these materials translated into a variety of foreign languages so that they can effectively communicate with minority communities in areas they serve. (See Appendix C, Creative Strategies.) The Task Forces recommend that these innovations, including educational videos and multi-lingual materials, be collected by OFP and made available to all field offices. In addition, we recommend that OGC, OFP, and the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) assess what information should be developed centrally for distribution to the field.
Implicit in the new NEP/LEP strategic enforcement program is the expectation that in taking charges Commission staff should assess whether the evidence presented supports statutory violations going beyond the confines of the individual charge. In the past, there was a tendency to construe charges narrowly so that the time required to complete an investigation would be limited. Under the NEP, field offices should use intake to identify cases that will have a broader impact on discrimination. Intake staff should determine whether the investigation of a particular charge should be broadened where there is evidence that there are a large number of victims of discrimination and significant like or related issues or violations of other statutes enforced by the Commission. For example, if a company's human resources director believes she/he was fired because of gender provides evidence that the employer coded applications based on race, the district office should consider expanding the initial charge or initiating a Commissioner charge to investigate the race coding issue.
An important part of intake is counseling individuals seeking to file a charge. Field offices should assure the quality of this process. It is incumbent on OFP and individual field offices to ensure, through training, that our intake staff is kept abreast of current applicable law and agency procedures to ensure charging parties are provided with accurate, appropriate information about their individual charges and the laws we enforce. In an effort to provide accurate, consistent information to charging parties, some offices have developed pamphlets and information sheets which advise PCPs about their rights to file a charge. Additionally, some offices have developed special forms to document the counseling which has been provided to PCPs. The use of these techniques may be advisable in offices where a high number of PCPs do not file charges. (See Appendix C, Creative Strategies, for examples of information sheets and forms used by some field offices.) Where appropriate, intake staff should consult with legal unit attorneys.
Most offices surveyed agreed that a successful intake process includes an analysis of the level of service provided to clients and customers. A major goal of such an assessment would be to enable intake staff to identify and eliminate unnecessary delays in scheduling appointments or responding to inquiries.
Information packets, videos and questionnaires related to the charge process which have proven to be effective with the public should be made available to all offices. Counseling information, videos, and questionnaires should be translated into foreign languages and accessible format in accordance with local demographics and identified under-served groups.
In offices where there is concern that potential charging parties may be inappropriately discouraged from filing charges, field offices should implement a tracking mechanism and/or a program which assesses the quality of pre-charge counseling notes and questionnaires.
All field offices have implemented the charge categorization process begun about two and a half years ago. Some field offices are using charge assessment forms to identify the charge category and the rationale for making the assessment. (See Appendix C, Creative Strategies.) This is completed by the investigator with supervisory review. Investigators in our field offices are the primary persons responsible for taking charges and categorizing them. Most investigators have access to assistance from the legal unit, if needed, at the intake stage. In all offices, investigation or charge receipt/technical information unit supervisors review the categorization decisions made by investigators. In most cases, the review occurs at the time the charge is taken and initially categorized. Under the PCHP, front-line employees were to be given more decision making authority in categorizing cases.
A major challenge of LEPs is to translate the strategic goals of developing impact investigations and litigation into operational action beginning at intake. To do so, it is necessary for intake personnel to use LEPs as a guide for the identification of A charges. Continuous communication between legal and intake staff on issues of immediate importance to the LEP is critical. Moreover, when LEP issues do not come through the door, the office should use its initiated or directed authority to meet the requirements of the LEP.
Intake personnel, in close consultation with legal staff, should consider the LEP when categorizing cases. Moreover, when the mix and balance of LEP issues are not addressed by charges that come through the door, offices should use their initiated or directed authority to meet the requirements of the LEP.
The PCHP guidance identifies Category C cases as those which are suitable for dismissal, and states:
A charge may be placed in Category C and dismissed when an office has sufficient information from which to conclude that it is not likely that further investigation will result in a cause finding.
An office will have sufficient information when it has conducted an investigation appropriate to the particular charge, factoring in resource considerations, and has assured that the CP has been provided a fair opportunity to present his or her case.
The PCHP guidance also provides flexibility and independence to the field authorizing office directors to give staff discretion to identify charges suitable for dismissal under the C Category standard. However, CDS data indicate that C charges are not routinely dismissed at intake. In some instances, investigators decide they need additional information to categorize a case as a "C." The Task Forces recommend that C cases be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
The Task Forces' survey identified a variety of special projects and "stand downs" which have been utilized by a number of offices to reduce the C case inventory. A "stand down" has usually been an office-wide effort, often as long as a month, which targets a certain segment of the workload, while ceasing activity on the other portions of the workload. While office-wide projects may have been effective during the initial period of inventory reduction, they are problematic at this stage of PCHP implementation, since the approach takes so many staff from functions that should not be shut down. Offices that focus solely on case closure for extended periods of time have an inevitable decrease in cause case development and litigation.
Greater emphasis should be placed on dismissing C charges expeditiously at intake. Where special focus projects such as efforts to respond to an expanded inventory are pursued, other key functions, such as intake or A-1 case development, should be maintained.
The original Charge Processing Task Force stressed the importance of sharing case information with charging parties and respondents to facilitate the timely settlement of cases. External stakeholders have suggested that there is an imbalance in the information shared. The Task Forces' discussions with field offices revealed wide variation in the form and content of information shared during an investigation. The Task Forces wish to reemphasize the importance of sharing information between charging parties and respondents which will facilitate case resolution. However, information should not be exchanged when the exchange would create an imbalance in the charge process or would violate the Commission's confidentiality requirements. Ultimately, the decision about what to disclose and when to disclose it to charging parties or respondents remains within the sound discretion of our field offices.
The sharing of case information with charging parties and respondents should occur during an investigation where the exchange facilitates resolution. In most situations, the sharing of information should be verbal; however, an exchange should not occur if it creates an imbalance in the enforcement process or violates any confidentiality rules.
An essential ingredient of the PCHP has been the timely identification and categorization of charges in which the respondent's conduct is likely to be found in violation of the law. A majority of field offices surveyed agreed that the involvement of legal unit staff in A case development, particularly the development of A-1 cases, is important. While some offices have an informal system of collaboration between their legal and investigative units, others use a more structured approach, such as having a Top Management Committee or Cause Board, consisting of investigative and legal enforcement managers, review A case development. (See Appendix C, Creative Strategies.) Once a charge has been designated an A, legal unit staff or top level managers are generally involved in further evaluating these charges and deciding whether a particular charge is an A-1 case (or potential litigation vehicle) or an A-2 case (a cause case that probably will not be litigated by the Commission if it fails conciliation).
In many field offices, all investigators are assigned some A cases. However, investigative unit structures vary, with offices utilizing a number of different configurations: (l) dedicated A units, i.e., units which exclusively process A charges; (2) strike forces, i.e., teams which investigate high priority A cases; and (3) at least five of the district offices are utilizing hybrid units, consisting of investigators working as a team under the direction of a legal supervisor, or investigators and attorneys under the joint supervision of a Supervisory Trial Attorney and Enforcement Manager. Hybrid units are designed to investigate cases involving a large number of potential victims, and other LEP cases. (See Creative Strategies, Appendix C, for discussion of hybrid units.) Hybrid units also promote legal/investigative interaction and accelerate the development of cases. Dedicated A teams focus groups of investigators on the development of A-1 and A-2 cases. This approach provides the potential for the movement of a significant number of cause cases through the system in a short time. The use of a strike force enables a specialized investigative/legal group to focus on serious cases which require quick legal involvement or are high priority cases. Offices encountering problems with the development of a sufficient number of A-1 cases may consider adopting an enforcement model from those mentioned above.
Irrespective of the type of system selected by an office, the Task Forces found that effective A case development can only occur through communication, cooperation and team work between investigative and legal staff. Many offices with good A case development and litigation programs have established a fluid investigative/legal relationship where investigators and trial attorneys interact on cases on an as-needed basis.
All offices must develop A-1 cases, but not to the exclusion of the movement, investigation and settlement of other cases in the workload. A-1 case development should occur with a strong emphasis on close legal/investigator cooperation. Offices are encouraged to use various models for the processing of A-1 cases, such as hybrid units, strike forces and dedicated teams.
A clearly focused and properly planned on-site investigation can be a valuable part of an investigation. In some instances, it will not be possible to get a good understanding of the nature of a work environment or the tasks performed by workers within a particular job classification without a visit to the work site. However, fewer field offices are now conducting on-sites than in the past. The decrease in the number of on-site investigations appears to be largely attributable to constraints on the agency's budget.
The Task Forces recommend that the Commission provide the financial support needed to fund on-site investigations in cases where they are critical to making an appropriate determination, to have a face-to-face interview to determine credibility or to collect evidence needed to evaluate a case for litigation. The budget increase proposed by the Administration for FY 1999 will provide the resources needed to do more on-site investigations, as appropriate.
The original CPTF Report identified B cases as charges requiring additional information. Specifically, the report stated that many charges will initially appear to have merit, but will require additional evidence to determine whether continued investigation is likely to result in a cause finding. In other instances, there will simply not be enough evidence to make a judgment regarding the merit of the charge without additional inquiry. These cases were identified as B cases and offices were to conduct additional investigation. Moreover, the determination as to whether to re-categorize a B case as a C case was to factor in resource considerations in deciding whether the additional investigation would likely yield an A case in need of priority investigation.
The CPTF Report also recommended that field offices develop a flexible process under which investigators would seek only that amount of evidence needed to decide whether it is more likely than not that a violation of the statute may be found. Offices were given the flexibility to determine how these decisions were to be made regarding the scope of the investigations and it was suggested that specific practices and/or policies be developed. The report further recommended that field offices decide whether to take further investigative or settlement action, as soon as practicable, after the receipt of the position statement or response to the request for information. Another recommendation was that cases categorized for further investigation (A and B) should be reviewed as needed during processing to determine whether they should be re-categorized. This was to apply to both new and existing charges in the pending inventory.
The investigation and resolution of B charges are essential to an effective charge inventory management program. There is a natural reluctance to make the difficult categorization decisions required by the PCHP. In many cases, it appears that staff , desiring to serve our customers well, find "B" a safer alternative than the "A" or especially the "C" choices. Ultimately, a change in organizational culture is necessary in order to have the system work effectively. In some instances, the effort to move our C and A charge inventory has also led to a build-up of B charges. A major challenge faced by the Commission is how to effectively process all categories of charges.
Some field offices have been successful in maintaining the relatively steady movement of B cases. Others have reduced their inventory of B cases by using a variety of special projects and stand downs. (See Appendix C, Creative Strategies.) However, in some instances, the focus on the B inventory was at the exclusion of the processing of A cases. This imbalance in inventory management created a shortfall of priority cases in the pipeline.
Despite innovative approaches taken by some offices to ensure that B charges are re-categorized in a timely manner, many offices do not have a system of case management or processing procedures in place to ensure the continuous movement, development and/or resolution of the aging B cases. One factor contributing to the build-up of the B inventory in some offices is a hesitancy on the part of investigators to re-categorize a case as a C or as an A.
The Task Forces have found that effective processing and attention to a district's B inventory are important measures of the success of an office, in that many B pools may contain potential A charges which should be developed, as well as a large number of cases that cannot be developed into cause. The latter should be quickly dismissed.
Field offices that have an aging B case inventory need to implement measures to ensure the steady flow, development, and, where appropriate, re-categorization of B cases, taking resources into account. B cases should not be unassigned for great lengths of time.
Field offices should develop internal standard operating procedures for processing B cases. Each office should ensure that all members of its team are aware of the operating procedures used and apprised of all revisions made.
Field offices with large B case inventories may consider it prudent to use limited special projects, which are not office-wide, to bring their inventory into balance without adversely affecting intake or A-1 case development or litigation.
Under the new charge processing procedures, it is even more important than in the past that charging parties be effectively counseled concerning the actions the Commission is taking in their cases. In the past, when the Commission issued substantive "no cause" determinations, these documents set forth specific justification for the Commission not pursuing the charge. In light of the cessation of substantive "no cause" dismissals, it is important that "determination counseling" of charging parties include a clear explanation of the actions the Commission has taken and the justifications for those actions. If the charge is to be dismissed or further processed, the charging party should be told the basis for this decision and what the options are at that time.
Determination counseling is generally conducted through a personal interview or by telephone. However, some field offices do not consistently conduct such interviews. The Task Forces suggest that an important part of providing appropriate service to a charging party requires providing such an interview.
Field offices, where this is not already occurring, should strive to improve their communication with charging parties and respondents and work towards the agency's goal of open and full disclosure of our procedures and decisions.
Field offices should continue to exhibit independence and creativity in their Determination Interview techniques, as long as these techniques are consistent with the mandate of the PCHP.
The Commission attempts to resolve cases throughout its administrative process. The process of resolving a case before a determination of discrimination has been made is a pre-determination settlement, which is more commonly referred to as a "settlement." A case resolved after a determination is issued is identified as a "conciliation." A case that has been referred to our ADR program for mediation can result in a "mediated settlement." (See Appendix C, Creative Strategies, for examples of model ADR programs.)
With the implementation of the PCHP in June 1995, the Commission unanimously approved the following with respect to settlements:
That settlement efforts be encouraged at all stages of the administrative process and that the Commission may accept settlements providing "substantial relief" when the evidence of record indicates a violation or "appropriate relief" at an earlier stage of the investigation.
It should be noted that the "full relief" policy was adopted by the Commission before passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which, for the first time, provided for awards of compensatory and punitive damages. Since non-pecuniary compensatory and punitive damages can be difficult to determine, the concept of "full relief" has become meaningless following passage of this Act. For this reason, and to give greater flexibility to resolve cases under appropriate circumstances, the Commission rescinded the former "full relief" remedies policy. Instead, field offices were given the opportunity to settle cases in which cause has been issued or will be issued for substantial relief and other cases for appropriate relief. Category C cases were to be excluded from settlement efforts, and A-1 cases were not to be settled without the concurrence of the District Director and Regional Attorney.
The Commission made it clear in the PCHP guidance that settlement is an important enforcement option. Offices were encouraged to work closely with charging parties and respondents to resolve disputes and offices were given discretion to determine whether a settlement offer was appropriate in a particular case. For the majority of the offices, the monetary relief captured in pre-determination settlements rose after the implementation of the PCHP, while the number of total pre-determination settlements achieved by a majority of the offices decreased. On the other hand, a majority of the offices experienced an increase in the number of successful conciliations and an increase in monetary relief obtained through conciliation.
All Commission field offices have begun to conduct mediation as one form of ADR used by our agency. While this program is new, we have begun to see a significant increase in the number of mediations taking place and an increase in the number of cases resolved through this process. The Task Forces recommend that information on ADR programs that have been successful should be disseminated to all field offices.
While the Commission's ADR program was not a subject of the Task Forces authoring this report, it is clear that ADR, and in particular mediation, will play an even more crucial role in the agency's enforcement program if Congress authorizes the Commission the 13 million dollar increase for mediation proposed in the Administration's budget. This additional funding will enable the Commission to dramatically expand the number of cases in which it will be able to offer mediation and to more quickly resolve charges of discrimination filed with the Commission.
Most offices indicate that their staffs have embraced the settlement concepts of the PCHP; however, some acknowledge that the PCHP implementation focus has thus far been centered around the development of A cases and the reduction of the inventory. A solid majority of the offices state that their staffs need additional training in settlement and negotiation techniques.
Field offices should initiate settlement discussions at all appropriate stages of the investigative enforcement process to resolve cases. They should emphasize the use of mediation as a case resolution tool. However, A-1 cases should not be settled without the consent of the Regional Attorney and District Director. ADR program models and results should be collected, analyzed and evaluated by OFP and disseminated to all field offices.
The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of private attorneys practicing in the area of employment discrimination. This development creates opportunities for the Commission to collaborate with private counsel on cases of public importance, as discussed above in the section on interventions. Moreover, the increasing private bar interest in employment discrimination cases can be used as a means of referring strong discrimination cases that the Commission does not have the resources to litigate.
The Commission, given its limited resources, considers the presence of private counsel as a factor in deciding whether to become involved in a particular case. Commission litigation in suits that involve private counsel, whether through joint litigation or Commission litigation, must serve an important public interest. Since the Commission can represent the public interest in only a limited number of cases, it must focus its litigation program in a way that strategically utilizes its limited resources. The issue that the Commission must address, in this regard, is how best to structure its relationship with the bar in light of the agency's mission. There is much that can be accomplished through cooperative arrangements, such as the referral of cases to the private bar, or through joint ventures, such as working closely with the private bar as co-counsel on important cases. The Office of General Counsel and the Commission, however, will continue to carefully scrutinize requests for intervention sought by our field legal units to ensure that we only intervene in cases where our participation is required to adequately protect the public interest.
In addition, the private bar represents an important source of attorneys to litigate cases in which the Commission has found cause but the EEOC field office that investigated the case has determined, pursuant to its LEP, that the agency will not file suit. The Commission has had success in establishing attorney referral panels consisting of local practitioners with an interest in employment discrimination cases in some District Offices. Working with attorneys on these panels has often led to the creation of a closer, more cooperative relationship being established between EEOC and the local bar. For example, the Houston District Office jointly sponsored an attorney training conference with the local NEA chapter, a group that had provided a number of attorneys to serve on their referral panel. This resulted in numerous inquiries from attorneys to the district office leading to the filing of charges with the office. Working with bar associations, such as the American Bar Association, can lead to the development of training programs developed to improve the skills of Commission investigators and attorneys. In turn, these training programs will give the ABA and other attorneys a better idea of how the EEOC operates.
It is essential that this agency take steps to foster such relationships. OGC and OFP must encourage field offices which do not have strong private bar relationships to establish these links. At times, the gap between the views of EEOC and the private counsel has led to some honest disagreements. However, given that the best possible relationship with the private bar stands to further the agency's enforcement efforts, finding ways to enhance that relationship must be a matter of priority.
OGC and OFP should encourage field offices that do not have strong private bar relationships to establish attorney referral panels and develop opportunities for joint training and/or co-counseling in appropriate cases.
Historically, in some Commission offices, investigators and attorneys have operated in relative isolation from each other in part because of the agency structure established by Title VII. This separation of functions was accentuated by the tendency of some offices to view case closure as a primary goal. Over the past three and a half years, the Commission's shift to a more strategic approach to law enforcement has begun to break down this division.
The successes that EEOC field offices have achieved to date in reducing the inventory of pending charges and transforming the docket into one that includes an increased number of significant cases could not have been achieved without investigators, attorneys, support staff, paralegals and managers working closely together. Similarly, this cooperative "whole office" approach is essential to successful development of the LEPs and to the success of EEOC as a national law enforcement agency. As noted earlier, the traditional distinction between "legal" and "investigative" functions is not particularly meaningful, as both functions are critical parts of the agency's overall enforcement mission. While attorneys and investigators generally perform different functions, it is essential that they work cooperatively in LEP case development.
This section of the report discusses and offers suggestions for how the legal and investigative functions of the agency can operate together successfully. Many offices have already created a culture of cooperation and teamwork that works for them, and there is no one right way to achieve the desired outcome. The challenge facing the agency is for all of our offices to find a way to break through whatever barriers still exist between the "legal" and the "investigative" sides of the house.
The NEP/LEPs require that each EEOC district office prioritize cases early in the enforcement process. In the majority of our offices, legal unit staffs are working closely with investigators to focus on the development of A-1 cases. Offices have implemented a variety of strategies to promote effective partnering, from using hybrid units composed of attorneys and investigators to assigning attorneys to particular investigative teams and involving line attorneys and investigators in top management committee discussions of particular cases during the investigative stage. (See discussion of different methods in the Priority Charge Handling Implementation section above and in Appendix C, Creative Strategies.) Many of these innovative approaches are working well and will continue to bear fruit as cases make their way through the pipeline. For these collaborations to continue, it is essential that Regional Attorneys and District Directors share responsibility and accountability for building the Commission's enforcement program, which necessarily includes building and monitoring the administrative enforcement program to ensure that it is developing appropriate cases for legal enforcement.
It is important for all of our offices to realize that attorney guidance to investigators as early as appropriate in the investigation of cases with potential for advancing NEP/LEP goals is crucial. Legal advice should be supplied in all cases where it is needed. In some cases, investigative and legal enforcement staff should collaborate on identifying and investigating A-1 cases, taking into account how the case fits into the LEP and what resources will be needed and are available to develop the case and litigate it. Appropriate attorney input into planning document requests, witness interviews and on-site investigations in NEP/LEP cases may save time and help focus an investigation. Moreover, as investigators, supervisory investigators and attorneys work more closely together developing such cases, all will be gaining knowledge and experience that will help on future case development and litigation.
Although attorneys and investigators are collaborating frequently in the administrative process, attorneys have not fully taken advantage of opportunities to involve investigators once a case fails conciliation. By extending the involvement of investigators into the legal enforcement process, field legal units can facilitate the professional development of investigators and reinforce the team building that is occurring in the administrative process. For example, providing opportunities for investigators to attend litigation strategy meetings, depositions and trials can have important long-term benefits for an office's enforcement program. These opportunities can enhance the skills and understanding of investigators in witness interviewing techniques, probative value of particular types of evidence, elements and burdens of proof of civil rights plaintiffs, and managing document production in large cases. In addition, attorneys can benefit from the investigator's knowledge of the facts and of the parties.
Attorneys and investigators in each office should continue to work together in collaborative arrangements. To the extent possible, attorneys should seek to create opportunities for investigators to participate in the judicial enforcement process. In offices that have not found systems that produce effective collaboration, field managers are encouraged to consider implementing some of the practices that have worked in other offices that are listed in Appendix C, Creative Strategies.
District Directors and Regional Attorneys must demonstrate leadership skills and set an example for cooperation between legal and investigative staffs in district offices. In the most successful EEOC offices, the District Director and Regional Attorney share or agree on a guiding vision for the development and achievement of office and agency goals. The District Director is primarily responsible for charge intake, investigation and settlement. The Regional Attorney is primarily responsible for recommending and litigating cases that the Regional Attorney, General Counsel or Commission has approved for litigation. In situations where cases developed from charges filed with the office fail to address adequately the office's LEP goals, the District Director and the Regional Attorney are jointly accountable for identifying and developing cases to fill these gaps. Field offices have developed a variety of alternative models for collaboratively developing LEP cases. ( See Appendix C, Creative Strategies, for a discussion of hybrid units and other approaches.)
The Task Forces encourage the General Counsel and the Director of OFP to require joint development, implementation and assessment of LEP goals and objectives, and joint development of a sound litigation program by District Directors and Regional Attorneys. It is essential that the District Directors and Regional Attorneys recognize the critical importance of working together to achieve LEP objectives, with joint ownership of an effective enforcement program.
The current Commission leadership has worked in partnership with its labor-management partnership councils to identify ways in which the agency can become more efficient. In addition, the earlier PCHP Task Force suggested that the agency needed to explore how to reduce the levels of review of some of its administrative decision-making processes. It recommended that Regional Attorneys share in administrative decision-making in areas such as staffing, computer and software needs, and litigation travel budget. This recommendation was implemented, and Regional Attorneys now have direct control over their budgets for travel as well as case support. Regional Attorneys' staffing requests are on a separate track from those of staff reporting to the District Director.
Similarly, District Directors now have more control over some field office administrative functions, such as district office budgets and the transfer of funds to different cost categories, as operational needs arise. However, other crucial administrative decisions, such as staffing levels, are centralized. Moreover, the flexibility on how to use allocated positions is somewhat limited, even though the accomplishment of an office's LEP may be dependent on staffing in particular job categories.
OGC and OFP should work with District Directors and Regional Attorneys to explore ways of enhancing administrative decision-making authority at the local level.
Commission field staff also face administrative barriers to efficient case development and litigation. Manual reporting systems, periodic requests from headquarters for duplicate information in different forms, and cumbersome methods of projecting and controlling the expenditures of funds, all take their toll on the management of the enforcement program in our field offices. Procedures for obtaining petty cash or otherwise making payments for small disbursements such as witness and service fees, paperwork and layers of approval to obtain authorization and reimbursement for travel expenses, and paperwork and delays in obtaining expert services can be daunting for attorneys facing short litigation deadlines.
The CDS system, as presently configured, is not yet fully attuned to the PCHP changes and field offices' operational needs. As a consequence, the data and reporting system do not provide the types of reports required for effective monitoring and analysis of the quality and quantity of progress made in the agency's handling of its pending inventory.
The Commission needs to find ways to free up field staff to develop, settle or litigate impact cases, to streamline procedures, and to shift duties from legal units or field offices where possible and appropriate. The Commission has been making progress in simplifying procedures in some of these areas, for example, by increasing local authority to $25,000 for litigation support funds, and providing simplified procedures for limited competition in expert procurement. This progress should be built upon as we move forward with strategic enforcement.
OGC, OFP and ORIP should work together to eliminate duplicate requests to field offices for similar operational information or data, and to substantially reduce reporting burdens based on the shortcomings of the current charge and litigation reporting systems. OGC and OFP should, in coordination with ORIP and ORIM, review and, where appropriate, change these systems so that they can provide the information and data needed for LEP implementation in the field, and the effective monitoring of the PCHP and NEP implementation nationwide.
Since the PCHP encourages legal unit attorneys to be involved early and often in identification and, where appropriate, development of cases, it is essential that investigators in area and local offices have access to timely and consistent attorney support as they develop significant cases. Given that only a few of our area and local offices have ever had attorneys on staff, district offices have been required to develop strategies for providing support from afar. Many of our area and local offices could increase the effectiveness of their enforcement programs with enhanced access to attorneys. While area and local offices will always face unique challenges, the Commission must find ways to enhance the enforcement potential of these offices so that charging parties in the communities served by these offices do not receive second-class service. In order for area and local offices to achieve the goals of the PCHP and the NEP/LEP and help the legal unit to develop a quality litigation program, the focus must be on achieving quality investigations of category A cases in all of our offices.
The Task Forces examined and discussed the issue of providing legal support in area and local offices. Many area and local office staff said they would benefit by having a trial lawyer physically located in their office. There is a consensus that the experience of locating two trial attorneys in the Minneapolis Area Office has produced substantial enforcement results for the Milwaukee district. Some district offices have achieved success assigning designated trial attorneys or supervisory trial attorneys to work with particular area or local offices, with opportunities for frequent periodic visits.
Offices with substantial legal unit staffing (i.e., at least 10 attorneys), particularly if they have trial attorneys who would prefer relocating, should consider whether it is feasible to relocate experienced trial attorneys to appropriate area or local offices. Another technique would be to detail one or two trial attorneys to area or local offices to work on particular A-1 cases when it looks like the investigation may lead to a significant LEP A-1 case. Also, the Commission should consider adding attorney positions to some area or local offices that have not received adequate legal support.
Managers in the field and headquarters should take whatever steps necessary to ensure that area and local offices receive support sufficient to develop cases consistent with LEP goals.
Although many offices have instituted procedures that are adequate to distill a sufficient quantity and quality of cases for litigation from the administrative process to maintain a credible and visible judicial enforcement program, other offices must take steps to upgrade their dockets. In offices seeking to upgrade their dockets as envisioned by their LEPs, the legal unit should have the opportunity to look beyond the cases designated A-1 for potential litigation cases, including A-2 cases and B cases when necessary. Moreover, A cases should not be referred to ADR without the concurrence of the Regional Attorney. Finally, the legal unit should be routinely consulted before the district office accepts a settlement or takes further action on a failure of conciliation in an A or A-1 case.
In offices that are seeking to upgrade their dockets, the legal unit should be encouraged to review cases beyond those designated A-1 to locate and develop cases that will promote LEP objectives.
In order for the Commission to assess how its policies have been implemented under PCHP and the NEP, it must have summary reports of activity from the various programs, particularly OGC and OFP, on a regular basis. Information about enforcement trends (the rates for inventory reduction, cause cases, settlement, ADR, back pay, conciliations, NEP/LEP data, etc.) and litigation activity (number of suits filed, proposed suits, impact of suits, settlements, etc.) is vital. It would be helpful if both offices filed frequent periodic reports since much of this information is regularly collected as a matter of course and would not create an additional burden on the field. It would also be useful if such reports in the future more closely tracked NEP/LEP activity and were based on common NEP/LEP definitions. (For example, OFP and OGC measure prospective relief differently. However, they have agreed to develop a common definition for implementation in the near future.)
The Task Force does not recommend unnecessarily increasing data collection and reporting requirements on field offices, and would limit new requirements to specific NEP/LEP and related enforcement goals. While reporting is important, we recognize that field staff and resources are limited, and that duplicative reporting requirements detracts from enforcement activities.
We note that OFP, OGC and the new Office of Research ("ORIP") are examining these issues and are in the process of making recommendations to the Office of Information Resources Management ("OIRM") regarding the changes needed to data collection and reporting systems. We applaud them for taking the initiative to tackle this complex area, and are hopeful that the Commission will make available the resources necessary to quickly accomplish this task.
Joint Investigation/Partnership with City and State Agencies to Jointly Resolve Claims of Discrimination Involving a City Agency - Baltimore
Joint Charge Screening Training with New Jersey Division of Civil Rights for Minority Organizations to Screen Charges - Philadelphia
Program Using Federal Employees as a Mock Jury - Minneapolis
Intern Programs in Major Colleges and Universities - Milwaukee
Joint Litigation by Field Legal Units - New Orleans and New York
OGC Provision of Resources to Field Offices - OGC
OGC Detailing Staff Where Experience or Expertise Is Needed - OGC
LAN Library - New York
OLC ADA Case Study Model - OLC
OGC Trial Skills Joint Private Bar & EEOC - OGC
Informal Training with Legal and Investigative Staff - Chicago
CLE Training - Houston
Use of Revolving Funds for CLE Training - Houston
LEP Case Management Report - New York
Semiannual LEP Case Management Meeting - New York
Meeting with Disability and Elder Rights Groups - Chicago
Outreach Activities to Form Systemic "Hotline" - New York
Staffing Booth at Indiana Black Exposition - Indianapolis
Community Group Outreach with Commissioners - Chicago
National Origin Symposia with FEPA, University and Advocacy Group - Miami
Reaching Under-Served Small Employers and Advocacy Groups in Rural Areas in Conjunction with State FEPA - St. Louis
Joint Project with FEPAs - Chicago
Outreach to Agricultural Workers - San Francisco
Work with Major State Paper and Labor Press - Milwaukee
Coverage of Major Litigation on Local and National Media: Coordination of Litigation Activities and Media Coverage - Miami
Press Networking and Media Contacts - New York
Training of State Welfare-To-Work Program Participants on EEO law - Albuquerque
Meeting with Non-Traditional Groups - Chicago
Outreach Program - Houston
Outreach Program - Miami
Weekend Seminars with CP Communities - Chicago
Small Business Administration Outreach - Chicago
Small Businesses in Rural Areas - Albuquerque
Stakeholder Open Houses at District and Area Offices - Baltimore
Stakeholder Quarterly Meeting With Private Sector and Government Human Resource Managers, as well as Community and Union Leaders - Milwaukee
Advisory Group Composed of Advocacy Organizations and Employers - San Diego
Creation of Georgia Stakeholders Task Force of Advocacy Groups, Community Organizations, Employers and Racial/Ethnic Group Media to Educate Members on EEOC Laws and Procedures - Atlanta
Meeting with Community Organizations Seeking Jobs for Protected Groups - Milwaukee
District Office Outreach to Employers, Community Groups and Media - Miami
Forums on Sex and Race Harassment with Unions, State Universities and Chambers of Commerce - Indianapolis
Round Table Discussions with EEOC, State and Federal Agencies and Community Groups - Milwaukee
Inter-Agency TAPs Panel Discussing Laws and Areas of Overlap - Several District Offices
Reaching Rural Under-Served Populations - Baltimore
Education Of Under-Served Populations to Identify Employment Problems - Charlotte
Reaching Rural Native American Populations - Denver
Development and Use of Multilingual Brochures - New York
ADR Program - Los Angeles
ADR Round Tables - Chicago
Development of A Charges - Baltimore
Expanded Batching - Chicago
"Decision Not to File" Charging Party Form - Minneapolis
Use of File Disclosure Form/FOIA & Section 83 - Chicago
Operation Jump Start - Charlotte
Multiple Charge Resolution Project - Los Angeles
Development and Use of Intake Information Sheets - Washington
Intake Questionnaire - Washington
Investigator Analysis/Assessment of Charge - Chicago
Intake/Settlement Project - Charlotte
LAN-Based System for Generating RFIs, Investigation Plans and Investigators' Memoranda for A and B Cases - New York
Cause Board Composed of Legal and Investigative Managers to Guide and Track Cause Cases - Indianapolis
Legal/Investigative Interaction with Area and Local Offices - New York
Hybrid Units - Several District Offices
Hybrid Unit - Chicago
A/C Team - Specialized Unit - Seattle
Trial Attorney Assigned to Investigative Units for A1 cases - New York
Training, Communication and Open Door Policy - New York
Descriptive Title of Model: Coordination of Joint Litigation with State Attorneys General.
Detailed Description of Model: The EEOC (New York District Office) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have both sued a large employer in a joint challenge to an illegal ADEA waiver implemented in connection with an involuntary workforce reduction. The New York office initiated an ADEA-directed investigation in 1995; the Attorney General's Office filed a charge in the public interest in 1996. There was a coordinated investigation and conciliation.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: This project enhanced teamwork between the Civil Rights/Civil Liberties of the Attorney General's Office and the New York District Office's Legal Unit. The two offices were able to effectively organize investigatory and litigation strategy. We anticipate the continuation of a good working relationship.
Lessons Learned: Effective communication is the key to successful teamwork. It was very important to allow the Attorney General's Office to file its lawsuit first, so that it would not be foreclosed by our lawsuit. We therefore sent our lawsuit to their offices so that they could arrange filing in the proper sequence.
Contact Person Anna M. Stathis, Supervisory Trial Attorney
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8494 FAX (212) 748-8465
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Information from press and community resulted in partnership initiative with Baltimore Community Relations Commission and Maryland Commission on Human Rights (both are FEPAs), to initiate three agency task force to work on resolving allegations of race discrimination in a city law enforcement agency.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Presentations to groups representing employees and mayor's advisory groups; offer to management to conduct training; joint investigation by three agency task force based on charges filed with three agency task force.
Lessons Learned:
- Be attuned to community concerns and information from press.
- Collaboration with other related agencies (FEPAs) works.
- Offer of training, press interest, and pending charge investigation puts ball in employer's court to take effective remedial action.
Contact Person Barbara Veldhuizen, Deputy District Director
Office Baltimore District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (410) 962-4061 FAX (410) 962-2817
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Philadelphia District Office has launched a program in cooperation with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (DCR) to train representatives of minority organizations to help EEOC develop more effective charges and to screen out nonmeritorious charges. EEOC and the New Jersey DCR will first conduct a one day free EEO seminar, keynoted by a prominent U.S. Senator and promoted to their combined minority organization contacts. Their goal is to recruit two individuals from each interested group to receive further intensive training, including basic procedural information on jurisdiction, obtaining testimony, evidence and witnesses, as well as substantive training on issues such as reasonable accommodation and harassment. These individuals will then train their respective groups.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: This program is still in the developmental stage; the initial seminar will be held in October 1997. However, it has already strengthened cooperation between EEOC and its New Jersey FEPA partner, and generated interest in the proposed "train-the-trainer" events among Puerto Rican and NAACP organizations which have not been actively involved in employment discrimination issues. The intended outcome is more effective enforcement, leveraging EEOC's limited resources by educating community groups to develop good charges and help screen out meritless charges.
Lessons Learned: Philadelphia District Office hopes to increase service to under-served groups and to focus limited Commission resources on eliminating actual discriminatory practices by joining forces with its FEPA and educating community groups to develop meritorious charges and screen out charges lacking merit before they get to EEOC.
Contact Person Ed McCaffrey, Program Analyst
Office Philadelphia District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (215) 451-5732 FAX (215) 451-5804
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Minneapolis Area Office organized a unique event that benefited the litigation program, while providing outreach and internal training. EEOC attorneys practiced closing arguments that they planned to use in an actual case before eighteen employees of other federal agencies, who acted as a jury in a mock trial.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The "jury" rendered a verdict, and later gave the attorneys useful feedback on their argument. Also present for training were staff members of the Minneapolis Area Office. In return for their "jury duty," the area office staff will provide EEO training to the participating federal agencies.
Lessons Learned: Interaction with other federal agencies can be beneficial to both agencies and promote mutual understanding. Activities can be 'leveraged' to benefit both agencies.
Contact Person Chester Bailey, Director or Michael Bloyer, Director
Office Milwaukee District Office or Minneapolis Area Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (414) 297-1265 FAX (414) 297-4133 or
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Use of Interns in Office
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: As a result of its close relationship with internship programs in the major colleges and universities in Milwaukee, the Milwaukee District Office participated in an Off Campus Learning Program activity at Alverno College, and received an invitation from Marquette University to attend an address by Attorney General Janet Reno concerned with youth crime prevention and control. The Milwaukee District Office staff also was asked to speak at the Milwaukee Area Technical College.
Lessons Learned: Use of interns has additional benefits to the agency and provides communication links with colleges and universities, in addition to being a source of staffing resources.
Contact Person Chester V. Bailey, District Director
Office Milwaukee District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (414) 297-1265 FAX (414) 297-4133
Descriptive Title of Model: Operation of the Office of General Counsel as a National Law Firm.
Detailed Description of Model: The General Counsel has encouraged the coordination of litigation activity among EEOC District Offices. The initiation of an action to intervene in litigation against a large, nationally-known employer is an example of joint efforts by the New Orleans and New York District Offices. The New Orleans District Office prepared a Presentation Memorandum recommending that the Commission intervene in the litigation which covers all of the company's stores east of the Mississippi River. This recommendation was approved. Both the New York and New Orleans Offices are actively engaged in the litigation.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The skills of both legal units have enhanced our litigation posture.
Lessons Learned: Communication and the pooling of expertise contributes to the efforts to encourage a national law firm concept.
Contact Person Katherine Bissell, Trial Attorney
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8428 FAX (212) 748-8465
Descriptive Title of Model: Headquarters Provision of Resources to Field Offices
Detailed Description of Model: There are three primary types of resources that headquarters offices should provide on an ongoing basis to field offices. Examples of such OGC resources are identified below:
1. Information on the Agency's current policies and practices -- An example from OGC is the Regional Attorneys' Deskbook, which is currently being updated. The Office of Legal Counsel is working on an Investigator's Desk Manual for enforcement unit personnel that would contain information on charge analysis and investigation (with cross-references to the compliance manual), and possibly also include interpretations of EEOC policy and guidance and information on related laws and their impact on charge processing.
2. Information on Agency activities and achievements -- Examples from OGC are the ADA Docket and the summaries of district court and appellate decisions. The OGC summaries serve both as a source of information on what the Agency is doing and as examples of good performance.
3. Information, materials, and services directly supporting investigations and litigation -- Examples from OGC are the LMS and Appellate Brief Banks; LMS's collection of jury instructions; model pleadings and briefs; guidance memoranda on substantive and procedural matters; and the consulting and advisory services provided by Research and Analytic Services.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: To perform optimally, each office should have ready access to the Agency's expertise and cumulative knowledge, as well as to materials developed by other offices.
Contact Person Jerome Scanlan, Assistant General Counsel
Office Office of General Counsel,
Litigation Management Services
Telephone and Fax Numbers (202) 663-4719 FAX (202) 663-4196
Descriptive Title of Model: Detailing Staff to Offices Where Their Experience or Expertise is Needed
Detailed Description of Model: In an ADEA reduction-in-force case filed by the Denver District Office, OGC detailed an experienced trial attorney from another field office to assist in preparation for mediation and, if necessary, trial of the case. The attorney was given the title of Acting Assistant General Counsel, and in effect was in charge of the trial team through settlement of the case, which occurred in principle, approximately three months after the detail began, and became final after another eight months. During the first few months of the detail, the attorney made a number of trips from St. Louis to Denver for periods of up to a week.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: This detail worked out very well for the Agency as it contributed substantially to a successful resolution of the case. The office where the attorney is permanently assigned was able to spare her, and she added necessary experience to the Denver trial team. Details of this kind, even if they turn out to be expensive, are a very good use of the Agency's resources. The Agency has a number of highly skilled employees, but they are not evenly distributed among our offices, and even if they were, the work would not necessarily be. We have to make the most effective use of our employees' abilities, and where this requires details among offices it should be done as a matter of course.
A related model would be processing charges or litigating cases through the joint efforts of more than one office. Even where each office has employees with the necessary experience and expertise, having offices work together might often be a more efficient way of handling complex matters, particularly where the respondent or defendant has geographically diverse offices or facilities. Further, offices working together should contribute to the morale of the employees involved, who will not only appreciate the assistance provided, but will feel less isolated in dealing with large, better-financed employers.
Contact Person Jerome Scanlan, Assistant General Counsel
Office Office of General Counsel,
Litigation Management Services
Telephone and Fax Numbers (202) 663-4719 FAX (202) 663-4196
Descriptive Title of Model: LAN Library (Facilitation of Intra-Office Communication, Sharing of Work Product, and Reference to Common Guidance and Reference Materials)
Detailed Description of Model: A library of various guidance materials, shared work products, press releases, outreach and speech materials, litigation related documents, and other materials organized functionally on the LAN server and accessed using features of WordPerfect for DOS 6.1 macros in a menu driven system. This system provides paperless guidance materials, information sharing, and in office communication capability which enhances effectiveness in all areas of District operation including PCHP and NEP/LEP performance. Materials E-mailed or downloaded from the BBS can also be distributed to all staff by means of the LAN library, and E-mail can be used to notify staff of newly acquired guidance and materials posted.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Improved and more timely communication to the staff, desktop access to needed materials, less preparation time required to develop speeches and presentations, less time spent developing legal documents because "the wheel does not have to constantly be reinvented." Our LAN library application serves the same purpose as an intranet, until this newer window's based technology can be made available to the staff.
Lessons Learned: A well administered LAN library can serve as a desk top reference library and communication tool which can result in better and more uniform performance within a District Office.
Contact Person Richard Alpert, Deputy Director
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8405 FAX (212) 748-8464
BBS and Internet E-mail Address NWYKRBA firstname.lastname@example.com
Descriptive Title of Model: ADA Case Study Training
Detailed Description of Model: OLC conducted two-day training for all field staff who deal with substantive ADA/Rehabilitation Act issues. Training consists of six case studies, each addressing a specific ADA issue. Focus of this training was determining the appropriate ADA analysis to be applied.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: By using case studies that simulate investigations and litigation, we achieved greater participation and understanding of how to analyze charges. By having participants work through a case study, problems in analysis become apparent and thus can be corrected. Accurate and early analysis of ADA issues will result in more focused intake and investigations. The training materials also included easy to follow outlines of legal analyses in five ADA areas which investigators can continue to use.
Lessons Learned: We learned the importance of using highly trained and knowledgeable trainers; we used OLC/ADA Division attorneys with excellent training skills and the ability to apply training lessons to field work. We learned the importance of consultations with the field to ascertain what it needs, as well as with ADA Division attorneys who routinely answer questions from field staff. We learned the importance of providing outlines of legal analyses for field staff to continue to use after the trainers have departed from the field.
Contact Person Sharon Rennert, Senior Attorney Advisor
Office Office of Legal Counsel - ADA Division
Telephone and Fax Numbers (202) 663-4676 FAX (202) 663-4634
Descriptive Title of Model: 1997 EEOC Trial Skills Workshop
Detailed Description of Model: The 1997 EEOC Trial Skills Workshop was the second of a series of trial skills workshops. It was offered to 51 of the Commission's trial attorneys in July 1997. The workshop was based on a "learning by doing" methodology. Participants developed and enhanced their trial skills through participation in simulated courtroom activities: jury selection, opening statement, direct examination, cross-examination, introduction of exhibits, use of demonstrative exhibits, and closing argument. The simulations were based on employment discrimination case files that reflect the type of cases regularly handled by the Commission.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Improved level of trial skills among trial attorneys participating in the Workshop. Improved level of enthusiasm, commitment, and camaraderie among participants after working intensely with peers from other offices for a week.
Lessons Learned: First, the success of the training program, developed and delivered by Commission staff, demonstrates that we can provide cost-effective, high quality attorney training. Second, Commission trial attorneys are ready, willing, and able to improve their trial skills through focused, intense skill training. Third, more trial skills training needs to be conducted to bring Commission attorneys to the level of trial expertise their work demands.
Contact Person William D. Snapp, Regional Attorney
Office Atlanta District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (404) 562-6932 FAX (404) 562-6905
Descriptive Title of Model: Training for Investigative and Legal Unit Staff
Detailed Description of Model: The Chicago District Office has instituted an internal training program under the supervision of an STA. Brown bag lunches are held in the Library approximately once a month for trial lawyers and interested investigators. Recent topics have included theories of retaliation, defending class member privacy interests in sex harassment cases, and backpay and hiring relief calculations in recruiting and hiring class cases. Sessions which focus on Chicago office cases currently in litigation are especially well-received. Written summaries of pertinent case law are usually provided. In addition, brown bag lunches are scheduled when the legal division achieves a significant result such as a trial decision. Investigators and lawyers who worked on the case are asked to describe it to interested staff.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: This training model provides an opportunity for investigators and attorneys to interact in an informal setting and to share pertinent information.
Lessons Learned: The brown bag sessions are mandatory for new attorneys and have been very effective as a training method.
Contact Person Gordon Waldron, Supervisory Trial Attorney
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-7525 FAX (312) 353-8555
Descriptive Title of Model: CLE Training for Private Attorneys
Detailed Description of Model: When the Houston Legal Unit provides a continuing legal education program for private attorneys, a federal judge or magistrate and the FEPA's general counsel are invited to provide an update on the perspective from the bench, and an update on the state's human rights laws, as well as the FEPA's enforcement practices and procedures. FEPA's counsel has given an update on three occasions, to a combined audience of approximately 300 attorneys. At a seminar co-sponsored with NELA, the magistrate and FEPA counsel were among the best regarded speakers.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: We have experienced improved relationship with the FEPA and improved coordination of services to stakeholders. Participation by the federal judiciary increases the value of the training and links our efforts as federal law enforcers with the judiciary's related role in civil rights enforcement. We have recruited more attorneys for the attorney referral panel and facilitated networking by EEO/labor attorneys.
Lessons Learned: A ready audience exists for CLE events. Many practitioners have had little federal litigation experience. They are eager to meet judges in a relatively informal setting and to learn about federal practice and procedure. Some of the more promising requests for amicus participation have come from attorneys who attend CLE and/or are relatively new to this field.
Contact Person James Sacher, Regional Attorney
Office Houston District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (713) 209-3398 FAX (713) 209-3402
Descriptive Title of Model: Working with the Revolving Fund Program to Co-Sponsor CLE Training for Private Attorneys
Detailed Description of Model: In 1996, the Houston District Office Legal Unit co-sponsored a day long CLE training event with the local NELA chapter. Held at a local law school, the training was attended by nearly 200 private attorneys.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: EEOC trial attorneys and legal interns attended the training at no cost. Attendees earned six CLE credits and received extensive materials. Responses were quite favorable and most indicated that they hoped to attend similar events in the future. About 15 participants joined our lawyer referral panel after the training. Many of the attendee are just beginning to handle EEO cases. Since the training, we have distributed amicus briefs to some of them, and several have asked us to file amicus briefs in their cases. Many have called the Houston office for assistance in handling cases.
Lessons Learned: Coordination with the revolving fund program permitted us to develop a program in cooperation with the local NELA chapter. The strong interest in the training confirmed the bar's increased interest in EEO law. By working with the revolving fund program, we were able to keep tuition quite low ($55 for a full-day event that included a buffet lunch and distribution of materials.)
Contact Person James Sacher, Regional Attorney
Office Houston District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (713) 209-3398 FAX (713) 209-3402
Descriptive Title of Model: LEP Case Management Report
Detailed Description of Model: The New York District Office has developed a reporting instrument to track progress of open A1 cases and dispositions and accomplishments on completed A1 cases. The report, although used monthly, is generated every 6 months to track progress on open and closed A1 cases. It is written in WordPerfect. The report ensures proper top management follow up on identified A1 cases, updates the docket with new A1 cases, and reports the results achieved under the LEP to date. This report is worked on by every unit supervisor and liaison staff attorney and keeps the staff focused on the importance top management attaches to the timely and priority development of A1 cases. Although the office has ceased to engage in rigorous case management of low priority cases, this report ensures that A1 cases are timely and appropriately developed, and that staff resources are committed to the identified A1 cases.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The report is used by the Regional Attorney, District Director and Deputy District Director to monitor the progress of each A1 case and to ensure that LEP commitments are on track. A large number of LEP cases have been brought to conclusion through the monitoring that this report helps to facilitate.
Lessons Learned: The updating of this report and its regular monthly use serves to emphasize that A1/LEP case development is the utmost concern of the top management team in the New York District Office. Because EEOC's CDS database is under review, we designed a reporting instrument which meets the needs of the NYDO for assessing LEP progress.
Contact Person Richard Alpert, Deputy Director
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8405 FAX (212) 748-8464
BBS and Internet E-mail Address NWYKRBA firstname.lastname@example.com
Descriptive Title of Model: Semiannual Management Meetings
Detailed Description of Model: The New York District Office holds semiannual meetings involving the entire management team to develop strategies and to build consensus on the goals that are important to meeting the objectives of the NEP/LEP. At least one of those meetings is a retreat of two or more days away from the office where the supervisors and managers are able to review the state of inventory conditions affecting our performance, and to generate ideas about how we can be more productive and effective within existing resource constraints.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: These meetings enhance communication and team work among the supervisors and managers and ensure that there is a clear consensus as to what is important and the order of priority among the competing demands for resources within the District. By meeting in an environment conducive to creative, collaborative problem solving, better results are achieved. This leads to better NEP and LEP results and improved utilization of the PCHP throughout the district.
Lessons Learned: It is necessary to take time away from the office to plan how we will achieve NEP and LEP results and to ensure that all supervisors have a voice in setting the District's goals and priorities.
Contact Person Richard Alpert, Deputy Director
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8405 FAX (212) 748-8464
BBS and Internet E-mail Address NWYKRBA firstname.lastname@example.com
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Detroit District Office participates in meetings with umbrella organizations (e.g., Asian American Citizens for Justice) as a vehicle to reach a number of individual community groups.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Building relationships with a broader base of groups in the community.
Lessons Learned: Maximizing resources and using the umbrella organization as a resource to reach other groups.
Contact Person James Neely, District Director
Office Detroit District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (313) 226-7639 FAX (313) 226-2778
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Chicago District Office staff work with representatives from the Center for Disability and Elder Law and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to discuss ideas for collaboration to eradicate illegal employment discrimination.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The Chicago office has formed partnerships with the Center and the Lawyers Committee for strategic referral of charging parties with conciliation failures in public interest cases which will not be litigated by District Office.
Lessons Learned: Such collaborative initiatives benefit charging parties and produce ways to handle cases which otherwise would not be handled by the district, due to limited resources.
Contact Person John (Jack) Rowe, District Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-8550 FAX (312) 353-4041
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach Activities with Community-Based Groups
Detailed Description of Model: The New York District Office staff make outreach presentations to legal defense funds, plaintiffs bar, advocacy and community organizations to keep these groups in touch with its enforcement activities, thus providing a base for these groups to contact, where there are potential problems.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: These outreach meetings have formed the basis for pursuing several systemic charges and lawsuits including an HIV/AIDS insurance complaint, which was brought to our attention by the New York Lawyers for Public Interest, and an egregious "Speak English Only" charge from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund.
Lessons Learned: Direct outreach and networking with groups who have a link to the community could become a valuable source of information and "pipeline" for the identification of potentially egregious systemic charges.
Contact Person Larry Pincus, Program Analyst
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8406 FAX (212) 748-8465
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Indianapolis District Office participates annually in the Indiana Black Expo with an information booth staffed with volunteers from the District Office.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: EEOC and its statutes are made more visible and available to the African American community; Expo visitors can receive information and ask EEOC staff questions about the agency and the statutes we enforce.
Lessons Learned: Closer ties with the community have been established over time through regular contact.
Contact Person Thomas Hadfield, District Director
Office Indianapolis District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (317) 226-7215 FAX (317) 226-7953
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Chicago office calls on top agency officials to build relationships with community groups and to announce significant agency litigation.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Five meetings with representatives of various employers and advocacy groups were organized for visits by the Vice Chair and two Commissioners. Press conference to announce filings of two major class action lawsuits involving race and national origin discrimination was attended by the General Counsel.
Lessons Learned: Involvement of top agency officials provides greater impact and enhanced visibility for agency litigation and stakeholder outreach.
Contact Person John (Jack) Rowe, District Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-8550 FAX (312) 353-4041
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: A five hour EEOC symposium on National Origin Discrimination was held at Florida International University. It was co-sponsored by the Miami District Office, Metropolitan Dade County Equal Opportunity Board (The Dade County FEPA), Florida International University and the Spanish American League Against Discrimination. Handout materials for participants were provided by EEOC.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: 202 persons participated.
Lessons Learned: Collaboration with other organizations maximizes attendance and resources, and fosters a cooperative spirit between organizations.
Contact Person Federico Costales, District Director
Office Miami District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (305) 530-6060 FAX (305)536-4011
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The St. Louis District Office provided information and training to under-served small employers and constituent advocacy groups in a distant area of Western Kansas near the Colorado border in several concentrated days of meetings, in cooperation with the Kansas FEPA. Free training for employers, aimed at employers with less than 100 employees (from a list generated by headquarters software) brought a substantial response; outreach with various advocacy groups was developed through EEOC and FEPA contacts. The Catholic Diocese helped reach Hispanic constituents.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: St. Louis has been able to reach many diverse stakeholder groups in an under-served area in a cost-effective manner in one concentrated visit. Collaboration with the Kansas FEPA on this outreach should be fruitful because the FEPA will soon open a new Dodge City office covering this area. St. Louis also plans to conduct similar outreach in an under-served Missouri area.
Lessons Learned: High airfares have prevented extensive EEOC service to this area. St. Louis invested a week of staff time for a long drive to the area to hold several days of meetings with diverse constituencies, jointly with its FEPA partner. Contacts made on this outreach visit will enable the FEPA and EEOC to provide improved service in the area.
Contact Person John Fultz, Program Analyst
Office St. Louis District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (314) 539-7943 FAX (314) 539-7893
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Continuation of a working partnership between the Chicago District Office and state and local agencies (Illinois Department of Human Rights, the City of Chicago Commission, and the Cook County Commission).
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Two interagency documents (Employment Discrimination: A Guide to Working with Chicago Area Agencies and Where to File Employment Discrimination Claims), that were originally created in 1995, were revised and updated to include priority charge handling procedures.
Lessons Learned: Collaboration with related agencies gets the job done, through the pooling of resources.
Contact Person John (Jack) Rowe, District Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-8550 FAX (312) 353-4041
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach -- Sexual Harassment in the Agricultural Industry
Detailed Description of Model: This outreach project was initiated in response to requests for information regarding sexual harassment from farm worker women in the Central Valley of California. The San Francisco District Office launched this endeavor with the assistance of California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), Lideres Campesinas, Equal Rights Advocates and the Women's Employment Law Clinic of Golden Gate University. The program started with an all-day training session on sexual harassment law for CRLA outreach workers and attorneys last summer. Subsequently, Lideres Campesinas invited EEOC staff to conduct presentations at their "Know Your Rights" conferences throughout the Central Valley and Monterey County. EEOC investigators and attorneys gave several presentations throughout the Spring of 1997, just before the work season began. We anticipate continuing this outreach model for the next work season.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: There is a great need to conduct ongoing outreach to the agricultural community in California. As a major industry, it provides numerous jobs to many immigrant women who are vulnerable because of working circumstances and typical industry conditions. We have developed partnerships with key organizations and individuals involved in helping these women and, as a result, are able to be more responsive to the concerns of the farm worker community. As a result of our educational effort, we are receiving more charges from stakeholders working in rural areas.
Lessons Learned: A consistent presence from the EEOC in terms of outreach and eventual investigations and litigation can send the message that individuals have rights and that violations of those will not be tolerated. Additionally, forming partnerships with groups that have contacts and ties in the agricultural community are critical. In view of the lack of prior outreach of EEOC to farm workers, a sustained effort is needed to build and/or restore confidence in the agency.
Contact Person William R. Tamayo, Regional Attorney
Office San Francisco District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (415) 356-5084 FAX (415) 356-5046
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Open House for the Press
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The Milwaukee District Office has established close ties with the newspaper with the largest circulation in Wisconsin, and the labor press. As a result, these newspapers sent reporters to interview a top agency official when he visited the Milwaukee area. As a result, articles regarding his visit were published, thereby generating positive publicity for the agency.
Lessons Learned: Good relationships with the press can result in positive interaction with agency officials, and in enhancing the agency's image.
Contact Person Chester V. Bailey, District Director
Office Milwaukee District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (414) 297-1265 FAX (414) 297-4233
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Miami District Office's coordination of litigation activities, press releases and media contacts resulted in January coverage in AIDS Policy & Law. The District Office's press conference and follow-up interviews regarding a case involving a large supermarket resulted in television coverage on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN nationwide news, and local television in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and Tampa.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Nationwide coverage of EEOC and Miami District Office enforcement initiatives and litigation.
Lessons Learned: How to strategically use media to publicize the agency's mission and enforcement programs to educate those who are affected by our statutes.
Contact Person Federico Costales, Director
Office Miami District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (305) 530-6060 FAX (305) 536-4011
Descriptive Title of Model: Press Networking and Media Contacts
Detailed Description of Model: The New York District Office has encouraged the development of reliable contacts with press and media by keeping close communications with these sources. This is accomplished by visiting courthouse press rooms, calling reporters, inviting press to the District Office and meeting with editors.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Benefits include the development of reliable press contacts, who can be called on to fairly cover a story on a lawsuit or consent decree, publicize a district program or feature a local issue. Working with the media is extremely beneficial in locating witnesses and as a means of education and prevention. A prime example was the NBC Nightly News feature on "Racism on Wall Street." The feature took shape during a routine conversation with an on-the-air commentator for CNBC. From that point, the news story was further developed and became a national news piece regarding pernicious racism on Wall Street. The result was that over the next few weeks, the District received more than 100 confidential phone calls from minority employees working in the financial field who had experienced similar problems.
Lessons Learned: Contacts and direct networking with the media can be beneficial to case development and a source of outreach and education.
Contact Person Larry Pincus, Program Analyst
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8406 FAX (212) 748-8465
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Albuquerque District Office has contacted the two contractors who will provide training for welfare recipients under the State's welfare-to-work program, to offer one hour of training on EEO laws and rights for recipients who will be trying to enter the labor market.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Albuquerque expects to provide basic information on EEO rights to this important and potentially vulnerable constituency.
Contact Person Frank Iske, Supervisory Investigator
Office Albuquerque District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (505) 248-5216 FAX (505) 248-5233
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Chicago office meets with more "non-traditional" groups such as, area high school students and local airline and autoworkers' labor unions.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Enhanced accessibility to EEOC by representative groups, making future "employees" aware of their rights under EEOC statutes.
Contact Person John (Jack) Rowe, District Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-8550 FAX (312) 353-4041
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach Program - Houston District Office
Detailed Description of Model: The outreach program in Houston is broadly based and reflects the strong support of top management. The program in Houston has been in effect for many years. The Director hired the first "Outreach Manager" five years ago to coordinate external training activities. Outreach is based on building and nurturing relationships with all segments of the community, particularly under-served groups of Hispanics and Asian Americans as well as mental health consumers in the District. Activities include formal speeches and informal remarks; participation on panels; collaboration with other groups in cosponsoring events and projects; public relations activities; and attendance at meetings, lunches and dinners of constituent and employer organizations. Formal Open Houses are held periodically for opinion leaders and community activists in the EEOC Office. These consist of a one-hour briefings on the laws we enforce; audience input on problems particular to their community involving employment; a tour of the office; and a social hour with Intake staff and others. These are generally held from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. by invitation and the press is normally included. Town Meetings are held externally with similar groups and community leaders. The agenda includes briefings on the laws we enforce, input from external stakeholders, and a Question and Answer period. Outreach is the responsibility of the District Director, Deputy District Director, Regional Attorney, Program Analyst, and two additional Outreach Managers in the Golden Triangle geographic area and other staff as needed. Houston averages 25 to 35 formal activities per quarter and 80 to 100 public relations activities per quarter.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Outreach activities develop and refine the presentation skills of staff and offer a welcome diversion from the usual compliance activities. The public is much better informed as a result of the extensive media coverage on issues and events. Customer-driven charges and Commissioner Charges result from consistent outreach, as does increased attendance at TAPS programs. As a result of our comprehensive outreach program, there is extensive coverage on radio, television and newspapers on issues related to EEOC, and media frequently seek input for story development as well as breaking news. Press coverage on litigation could act as a deterrent to other employers and puts claimants and witnesses on notice to come forward with information.
Lessons Learned: There is a tremendous investment of time involved in building relationships. Collaboration and information sharing with other groups having similar objectives broadens our impact as an agency and reinforces our credibility as a law enforcement agency. Important Commissioner Charges have resulted from information brought to our attention as a result of outreach.
Contact Persons H. Joan Ehrlich, Director
Office Houston District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (713) 209-3379, (713) 209-3413, FAX (713) 209-3381
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach Program - Miami District Office
Detailed Description of Model: The Miami District Office has reached under-served areas of the State and under-served constituencies, including Hispanics, Native Americans, African Americans, migrant workers and immigrant groups, through programs co-sponsored with local human rights and advocacy organizations. An intensive four day program in Pensacola in the Florida Panhandle was preceded by extensive radio and TV publicity. EEOC and the local Human Relations Committee combined resources to obtain space and materials for multiple daytime and evening activities, including two educational symposia for advocacy groups and small employers, a stakeholder input meeting, media appearances and EEOC staff "expanded presence" service to take charges. In another under-served area near Panama City, EEOC has trained Southern Christian Leadership Conference members, not previously active in employment discrimination matters, and held several meetings with this group to reach minority constituents. Miami has co-sponsored programs with unions and civil rights organizations to reach under-served minority and migrant workers in other areas. District Office administrative judges and investigators on travel for hearings or investigations conduct outreach through meetings with community groups. Key staff are also assigned as liaisons to minority organizations in the Miami area, regularly attend meetings, make presentations and provide continuing input on these groups' concerns.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Through collaboration with community civil rights, union and advocacy groups, Miami has been able to bring information on EEO rights to many more under-served minority constituencies, located in outlying geographic areas. Through its outreach activities with several of these groups, for example, 70 charges were filed with EEOC in the Pensacola area.
Lessons Learned: The intensive Pensacola program demonstrated that advance publicity, the combining of EEOC and local resources, and the sharing of effort and costs, resulted in the education of employers and protected groups in distant under-served areas, and the filing of charges from under-served constituencies.
Contact Person Helia Pico, Program Analyst
Office Miami District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (305) 530-6024 FAX (305) 536-4011
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Chicago office has organized Saturday seminars for potential charging party communities and their representatives in the under-served areas of Rockford and Joliet, Illinois. These seminars were co-sponsored by local branches of the NAACP.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The Rockford seminar presented training to representatives of approximately 20 service organizations. The Joliet seminar was attended by approximately 100 persons.
Lessons Learned: Co-sponsorship with community-based organizations brings broader attendance; seminars held outside the normal workday are more accessible to potential charging party communities.
Contact Person John (Jack) Rowe, District Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-8550 FAX (312) 353-4041
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Collaboration with the Small Business Administration Regional Office of Civil Rights to reach small business employers.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The Chicago District Office hosted a ? day TAPS, using in-house facilities to reduce costs. By doing so, the District Office was able to reduce the fees normally charged for such events.
Lessons Learned: The reduced fee and added endorsement of an agency (SBA) with direct impact on their bottom-line was critical to reaching small businesses in the target audience.
Contact Person John (Jack) Rowe, District Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-8550 FAX (312) 353-4041
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Albuquerque District Office has been able to educate many smaller employers in scattered, distant locations at minimal cost to EEOC through seminars co-sponsored with the New Mexico Department of Labor, Joint State Employer Council. EEOC presents information on federal EEO laws in 5-hour seminars; the State Council arranges, promotes and pays the costs of the seminars. The Council charges attendees a modest fee ($30) for the seminars; surplus proceeds fund college scholarships for needy students.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Albuquerque has been able to reach many under-served small employers in far corners of the state at limited cost to EEOC through collaboration with the State Employer Council.
Lessons Learned: Albuquerque believes this is a very cost-effective way to reach small employers, and that these seminars do not conflict with EEOC TAPS goals because these employers, in distant locations, are unlikely to attend TAPS.
Contact Person Frank Iske, Supervisory Investigator
Office Albuquerque District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (505) 248-5201 FAX (505) 248-5233
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Baltimore District staff organized: brown bag lunches for members of plaintiff's bar in the District Office and two Area Offices; "Open House" programs for stakeholders; and congressional briefings, coupled with technical assistance programs, in two Area Office locations, as well as in the District Office. In FY 97, Baltimore renamed its "Open House" programs to "Open Forums" to emphasize that they are intended to provide opportunities for stakeholder input.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Building stronger relationships with various constituencies and communities in the far reaching areas of the District.
Contact Person Issie L. Jenkins, District Director
Office Baltimore District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (410) 962-4061 FAX (410) 962-2817
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: District and Area offices hold quarterly round table meetings, each of which is attended by local private sector and government human resources managers, and community, government and union leaders.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Builds relationships with communities and representative groups; enhances understanding and communications; provides for continued feedback from customers and stakeholders.
Lessons Learned: Round table discussions provide feedback which enhances our responsiveness to communities served by the District.
Contact Person Chester V. Bailey, District Director
Office Milwaukee District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (414) 297-1265 FAX (414) 297-4133
Descriptive Title of Model: Advisory Council
Detailed Description of Model: The San Diego Area Office has established a county advisory council which consists of leaders of community based organizations, civil rights groups, employers, labor organizations, and the legal community. The group was formed to assist the office in advancing the goals of the Commission and the office's LEP. The council, which meets quarterly, has adopted a mission statement.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The formation of the advisory group has resulted in enhanced visibility for the Commission and improved service to the public. Communities that have been traditionally under-served by EEOC in this geographic area, e.g., the Filipino and Hispanic communities, have found a voice through participation in the advisory group.
Lessons Learned: This model has served the San Diego area well, and will be used in the other counties covered by the office. By seeking support and input from all stakeholders, the agency can more effectively achieve its goals with limited resources.
Contact Person Patrick Matarazzo, Area Director
Office San Diego Area Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (619) 557-7282 FAX (619) 557-7274
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Atlanta District Office has established a Georgia Stakeholders Task Force composed of a broad range of constituent groups committed to work as partners with EEOC to educate their members on EEO laws and EEOC policies and procedures. The 18-member Task Force includes community leaders representing African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, older Americans, people with disabilities, women, employers, educational institutions and minority and ethnic media. Its initial project is to publish a newsletter in which each group will present information to its members throughout the State. One Task Force member already has written a very positive story about its mission in a disability advocacy publication with wide readership throughout the Southeast, noting that Task Force participation enables the disability community to build needed relationships with other community groups as well as improve communication with EEOC.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Atlanta has transformed stakeholder liaison from a consultative, input model into an active working resource, committed to: inform members about EEOC, build greater trust in its fair handling of employment discrimination, and educate constituents on EEO laws, rights and responsibilities. This is the first time that all of these diverse groups have worked together; their joint activities will enable EEOC to build credibility and trust among constituent groups and to significantly expand its educational efforts.
Lessons Learned: Sustained contact with stakeholders, over a 2 ? year period can build communication into an active partnership with EEOC, extending effective outreach to all constituent groups.
Contact Person Joanne Giunta, Program Analyst
Office Atlanta District Office.
Telephone and Fax Numbers (404) 562-6810 FAX (404) 562-6909
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: EEOC is represented by Milwaukee District Office staff at monthly meetings of umbrella organizations (such as the Community Liaison Group, which consists of over thirty community organizations seeking employment opportunities for protected groups), and at quarterly meetings of the Wisconsin ADA Partnership, a consortium of groups from all over the state promoting education about the ADA.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Improved relationship with community groups.
Lessons Learned: Use of umbrella organizations to begin to establish enhanced relationships with a variety of groups.
Contact Person Chester V. Bailey, District Director
Office Milwaukee District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (414) 297-1265 FAX (414) 297-4133
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Miami District Office Legal Unit actively participates in the District Office's outreach activities, including outreach activities at four schools, and speaking engagements at: the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar's Labor and Employment Law Section seminar, a regional NAACP Conference, the Dade County Bar Association, and an annual in-house nationwide training conference in Saint Petersburg for a major corporation. Legal Unit staff has also participated in the Commission's Federal Career Development Conference, the Commission's Symposium on Racial Discrimination Issues Regarding Employment and National Priorities, and press interviews.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The District Office and the agency gain enhanced visibility and credibility through regular contact with bar groups, employers, community groups, and the press.
Contact Person Federico Costales, District Director
Office Miami District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (414) 350-6060 FAX (414) 536-4011
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Indianapolis District Office used several forums to delineate issues of sexual and racial harassment, including workshops for the United Auto Workers, a seminar for the Indiana State University, a seminar for the Chamber of Commerce, and presentations to various corporate management groups.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Increase awareness of what constitutes sexual harassment.
Lessons Learned: Prevention through education programs.
Contact Person Thomas Hadfield, District Director
Office Indianapolis District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (317) 226-7215 FAX (317) 226-7953
Descriptive Title of Model: Round Table Discussions as a Method of Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: At Round Table discussions, usually, there is an assembled panel consisting of Milwaukee District Office representatives, representatives of other federal agencies (e.g. OFCCP), representatives of state and local government agencies, and representatives of community organizations who provide brief presentations that educate the public about fair employment rights and issues and programs at the national, state, and local levels. The presentations are followed by discussions between panel members and between members of the panel and the audience.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of the Model: The Round Tables provide a forum for various groups to network, discuss, and to solve employment-related problems. They also allow these groups to express their concerns to the EEOC, other government agencies, and FEPAs. Round Tables improve the employment environment within the Milwaukee District Office's jurisdiction by: establishing strong community relations; allowing participants to share ideas, i.e., "network," discover resources, and identify concerns; providing feedback to government agencies on improving services and identifying other matters of concern; and, identifying training and outreach that the EEOC and other government agencies can provide.
Lessons Learned: Attendees complete a survey, indicating their concerns, needs, and interest in future activities. Often, just the act of bringing parties together stimulates cooperative alliances. For example, a major employer and a Hispanic group on the same panel agreed to help each other with developing an appropriate interview process for Spanish-speaking applicants. In other instances, discriminatory situations are raised which result in initiation of investigations by the EEOC. For example, at one round table, representatives of advocacy groups expressed concerns about discrimination in hiring, discipline, promotions, and terms and conditions of employment by three large Milwaukee employers and a large department of the state government. These concerns led to a series of pattern and practice investigations of these employers by the Milwaukee District Office. At a round table in Iowa, the construction industry was identified as discriminating against minorities and women based on race, national origin, and sex with regard to hiring and harassment. Finally, at a recent round table in Minneapolis, a Hmong group raised discriminatory practices by two employers. The office is currently investigating charges filed against those two employers. Additionally, as a result of the input at the round table, we have determined that more outreach to Laotian, Vietnamese, and Cambodian groups is needed. The office is also in the process of scheduling training on employment rights, as well as training for the leaders of advocacy groups on how to complete and file charges. Furthermore, we will establish a schedule of regular visits by an investigator to the Hmong advocacy groups.
Contact Person Monty Johnson, Program Analyst
Office Milwaukee District Office
Telephone and Fax numbers (414) 297-4077 FAX (414) 297-4133
Descriptive Title of Model: Inter-Agency Panels for Technical Assistance Programs
Detailed Description of Model: Several District Offices have assembled multi-Agency panels to address cross/overlapping jurisdictional issues identified on TAPS agendas. Panels that have made such presentations in FY 1997, include: participants from the EEOC, Department of Labor and Social Security Administration who addressed the intersection of FMLA, Workers' Compensation and the ADA; panelists from the Office of Special Counsel/DOJ and EEOC who discussed IRCA and Title VII; as well as panelists from FEPAs and EEOC who covered investigative procedures. Offices which have incorporated such multi-jurisdictional panels in their programs include: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Denver.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Providing forums for "one stop" information on various overlapping employment-related laws has been very popular with our stakeholders. They are provided with clear, concise information from a group of federal/state experts, and allows stakeholder to get concrete answers to real life employment situations and problems.
Contact Persons
Bernice W. Kimbrough, Director
Atlanta District Office
(404) 562-6930
John P. Rowe, Director
Chicago District Office
(312) 353-8550
Dorothy J. Porter, District Director
Cleveland District Office
(216) 522-4784
James R. Neely, District Director
Detroit District Office
(313) 226-7639
Jacqueline R. Bradley, District Director
Dallas District Office
(214) 655-3300
Issie L. Jenkins, District Director
Baltimore District Office
(410) 962-4061
Chester V. Bailey, District Director
Milwaukee District Office
(414) 297-1265
Francisco J. Flores, District Director
Denver District Office
(313) 226-7639
Marie Tomasso, District Director
Philadelphia District Office
(215) 451-5757
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Baltimore District Director and a supervisor met with members of the Hispanic Community and their representatives in an under-served area, Salisbury, Md.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Eight potential charging parties were counseled, and more in-depth information was secured from two. With that information, the District was able to secure reinstatement for the charging party who had recently been terminated, prior to the filing of a charge.
Lessons Learned:
- Outreach to under-served areas uncovers possible discrimination.
- Working with the Community can secure immediate voluntary resolution of employment issues without the need to file a charge.
- EEOC's effectiveness and accessibility to community are demonstrated; members of the public will be more likely to come to EEOC with their employment concerns.
- Direct involvement of the District Director in outreach can make a strategic difference.
Contact Person Barbara Veldhuizen, Deputy District Director
Office Baltimore District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (410) 962-4061 FAX (410) 962-2817
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: Charlotte District Office is conducting "grass roots" outreach in seven under-served North and South Carolina counties, focusing on Native American, Hispanic, African American, Asian American and migrant worker constituents. The Program Analyst visits each area initially for 2-3 days. Dressed informally, he talks with people in barber and beauty shops, cafes, and other public places, and meets at night with community groups to learn about their employment concerns and problems. On a quarterly basis, he returns to each community for follow-up meetings.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The Program Analyst has been able to resolve some problems directly, avoiding potential charge filing. For example, learning of complaints brought to the NAACP by African American employees about racial slurs in a hospital newsletter, he met with the employees and with the hospital administrator, who agreed to provide sensitivity training for hospital staff to prevent such occurrences. In other cases, he has taken charges, thereby providing immediate service.
Lessons Learned: Investing several days in a community, starting with informal contacts has enabled EEOC to get valuable information about local discrimination problems, to reach groups traditionally under-served, and to educate them on their rights, and to establish ongoing communication. Quarterly follow-up meetings build credibility and trust in the Commission's services and provide continuing opportunities to resolve problems and/or to obtain charges as constituents become more aware of their rights.
Contact Person Marsha Drane, District Director or
Billy Sanders, Program Analyst
Office Charlotte District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (704) 344-6735 FAX (704) 344-6734
Descriptive Title of Model: Outreach
Detailed Description of Model: The Denver District Office has developed a strategy to reach many under-served Native American constituents in far-flung outposts of its region. In August and September 1997, the District Director, State and Local Coordinator and Program Analyst each will spend a full week visiting numerous reservations. The Director will go to 4 or 5 reservations in Montana, the State and Local Coordinator will go to 6 reservations in South Dakota, and the Program Analyst will go to 4 reservations in North Dakota. They will work with TEROs to present information on EEO rights and EEOC procedures in meetings with tribal council members, radio interviews and other outreach. The Program Analyst also will attend the annual meeting sponsored by the Nebraska Legal Aid Society on a Winnebago Tribal reservation in that State; the Society wants to provide information on EEO rights as part of its regular services. EEOC staff also make presentations at the annual meeting of the Dakota Coalition, sponsored by a group of TERO Directors from North and South Dakota.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: (Expected Results) While communicating information on rights and EEOC procedures to under-served Native American constituents, EEOC also will learn more about specific employment discrimination problems and the best ways to get information to tribal members. The active participation of the District Director will help communicate EEOC's commitment to this community.
Lessons Learned: With limited travel funds, Denver has concluded that the most cost-effective way to reach under-served Native Americans in distant, widely separated areas is to commit several staff members for a full week in each major area. Staff will fly to a major city in each state, then drive to reservations.
Contact Person Dave Simonton, Program Analyst
Office Denver District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (303) 866-1313 FAX (303) 866-1386
Descriptive Title of Model: Development and Use of Multilingual Brochures
Detailed Description of Model: This project was designed to provide information to immigrant and non-English speaking groups who might not be aware of their rights and options under the laws enforced by EEOC. The project, which was closely coordinated with the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, called for the New York District to write non-technical literature explaining employment rights. The final product is an eight paneled handout in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, providing the reader with a first-hand guide to employment rights under the law.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Results include an increased awareness of employment rights in the immigrant and non-English speaking communities of Boston, New York and Buffalo. The District has received several potential systemic and individual charges as a result of the distribution of the brochure at outreach events.
Lessons Learned: Specific literature for the under-served will create a link between the community and EEOC.
Contact Person Larry Pincus, Program Analyst
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8406 FAX (212) 748-8465
Descriptive Title of Model: Alternative Dispute Resolution Program
Detailed Description of Model: The Los Angeles District Office ADR Program utilizes an extensive cadre of external mediators from mediation associations and dispute resolution centers and five internal EEOC mediators, located in both the District and Area offices. Private mediation associations are assisting in marketing the ADR Mediation Program through outreach efforts and training seminars as well as by conducting mediations.
The ADR process is explained to charging parties (CPs) during the intake interview. The CPs receive a handout ("Invitation to Engage in Mediation") explaining the process, and are asked to decide whether or not to participate in the process. If the CP is willing to engage in mediation, an "Invitation to Engage in Mediation" letter is sent to Respondent along with the servicing of the charge. Respondent is given fifteen (15) days to decide whether or not to participate in the process. If the Respondent does not wish to participate, a survey of reasons for declining is asked, and the charge is returned to investigations for further processing. If the Respondent answers affirmatively, a mediation conference is scheduled with both parties.
Results of Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The ADR Program has resolved 37 charges totaling $896,028.00 in benefits, with an average benefit of $24,217.00 per charge.
Lessons Learned: Charging Parties are more willing to engage in mediation discussions than Respondents (85% compared to 13.2%). Enhanced efforts to increase employer participation are planned. Such efforts include education, technical assistance, outreach, and training.
Contact Person Douglas A. Herrera, Program Analyst
Office Los Angeles District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (213) 894-1030 FAX (213) 894-1118
Descriptive Title of Model: ADR Round Tables
Detailed Description of Model: In partnership with JAMS/ENdispute, a nationwide mediation/arbitration service provider, the Chicago District Office has hosted several ADR Round Tables for invited groups of 12-15 employer representatives interested in learning about EEOC's ADR programs and policies. The EEOC District Director and Deputy District Director participate in the Round Tables with senior level company or H.R. officials to demonstrate the strong support of the office for implementation of the ADR program. The details of the district ADR program and EEOC's policy guidance are presented to the employer representatives. The employers with internal ADR programs describe their activities and successes. There is a question and answer session facilitated by the JAMS/ENdispute representative.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Participants at each Round Table were asked to complete evaluations. Many positive comments were received. Employer representatives appreciated the opportunity to hear directly from EEOC officials about the ADR program, having it de-mystified, in effect. Employers who had previously shown little interest or were reluctant to agree to mediation, after attending the Round Tables, have been very receptive to having charges mediated. These employers also have spread positive words among their peers about the EEOC mediation program after attending these Round Tables.
Lessons Learned: Small group meetings are an effective approach to getting complex information across to a desired target audience.
Contact Person Cynthia G. Pierre, Deputy Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-0684 FAX (312) 353-7355
Descriptive Title of Model: Legal/Investigative Collaboration for the Development of A Charges.
Detailed Description of Model: In the Baltimore District Office, all charges assessed as top priority charges, regardless of litigation potential, are initially coded "A2" and are assigned to investigators. Investigators and supervisors meet with an attorney assigned to each unit to review A2 charges on a monthly basis. At this meeting, strategy on future investigation is discussed; charges ready for submission to the Director for signature as A2 cause cases are reviewed and substantial relief is assessed by the group on these cases; and the strongest LEP charges are selected for recommendation to the Top Management Committee (TMC) for upgrade to A1 status/litigation vehicles. The investigator, supervisor and attorney are responsible for the development of these cause cases in their respective roles. Notes from each meeting are retained on special forms in the case file. In addition to the regular monthly meetings, investigators are encouraged to review issues with the assigned attorney when necessary. This process occurs in both area offices with a team of two attorneys visiting the offices monthly to review A2 cases.
TMC meets monthly on those charges already designated as A1 and those being recommended for litigation (A1 status). Included in the meetings are Director, Deputy Director, Regional Attorney, both Supervisory Trial Attorneys, Supervisor and Investigator. TMC meetings include one of the three legal representatives (RA, two STAs) and either the Director or the Deputy along with the Investigator and Supervisor.
TMC considers the charge vis-a-vis the litigation program and provides strategy on the investigation. Charges accepted for A1 status are reviewed monthly until submission to legal for a final review. Investigators are provided with guidance from TMC on appropriate and substantial relief for A1 charges at these meetings.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: This collaboration and the TMC were implemented at the beginning of the last fiscal year. The number of cause determinations issued has doubled from last fiscal year.
Lessons Learned: The process of assigning attorneys for A2 case consideration has resulted in charges being moved more quickly through the investigation. Attorneys are on hand and can meet informally as well. The investigators, supervisors and attorneys are using the issues list from the LEP to identify those charges to be recommended to TMC for upgrade to A1 charges. TMC meetings allow for a full discussion of the charge with litigation strategy in mind, and allow for full collaboration between legal and investigations.
Contact Person Barbara Veldhuizen, Deputy Director
Office Baltimore District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (410) 962-4379 FAX (410) 962-2817
Descriptive Title of Model: Expanded Batching
Detailed Description of Model: Under the Chicago District Office's expanded batching process, decisions on charge assignment are made in a systematic and logical manner with the goal of minimizing the dispersion of related charges or investigations throughout the office. The purpose of expanded batching is to ensure that a designated investigator receives: (1) all charges filed by a given CP; (2) all charges filed against an identified major respondent(s) (known as "consolidated respondents") regardless of geographic location or industry; (3) all charges filed against respondents in a specified geographic area; or (4) all charges filed against respondents in a given industrial sector.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Charging parties are able to have the name of his/her assigned investigator at the point of charge filing thus eliminating the time- consumption, paperwork and postage involved in preparing and mailing 4000-5000 charge assignment letters each year. Cases are investigated more efficiently. Our customers are better served. Investigators become familiar more quickly with the policies and practices of specific respondents, respondents in the same business (health care, banking, construction, etc.) and/or respondents in the same labor market or region.
Lessons Learned: To appropriately tailor the expanded batching process to the needs of a particular office, a detailed analysis of the charge receipt traffic and trends must be done on a regular basis (semi-annually or annually) in order to make timely modifications or updates to the lists of batched respondents.
Contact Person Shirley Ellis, Enforcement Manager
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-0684 FAX (312) 353-7355
Descriptive Title of Model: Decision Not To File Form
Detailed Description of Model: The Minneapolis Area Office has a form which the potential charging parties sign after they have been counseled by the intake investigator and decide not to file a charge. The form identifies the intake investigator and the reasons why the potential charging party elected not to file a charge. Additionally, the form clearly states that if the potential charging party decides to file on the same matter at a later date that he/she must recontact EEOC within 300 days of the date of alleged discrimination.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Completion of this form provides the office with documentation from the potential charging party regarding why s/he elected not to file following an interview and counseling by the intake officer. Moreover, if the potential charging party declines to sign the form, then a supervisor is asked to participate in the counseling. This serves as a quality assurance check to ensure that while potential charging parties are being rigorously and effectively counseled, they are not being discouraged from filing meritorious charges.
Contact Person Michael Bloyer, Area Director
Office Minneapolis Area Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (612) 334-4040 FAX (612) 335-4044
Descriptive title of Model: Notice of Disclosure Rights
Detailed Description of Model:In the Chicago District Office, a detailed "Notice of Disclosure Rights" is included in the mailing to all charging parties whose cases are dismissed with a 90-day right to sue notice ("not cause," NRTS at CP request, conciliation failures, etc.). This notice describes the specific time limits on requesting file disclosure and indicates the name and telephone/fax number of the EEOC representative to whom the request for file disclosure should be made (normally the supervisor of the issuing unit). The notice advises the parties of the types of documentation that are and are not available under the disclosure procedures. Parties are advised they must sign a nondisclosure agreement and that they must pay copying costs if more than 30 pages are requested. Parties are notified of the estimated time period in which to expect action on the request and of the option to review the file in the office and/or to have a copy mailed to them. The notice does not mention FOIA or "Section 83" anywhere in the text. Parties are advised only to request "access" to their file(s). A database tracking system is used to document receipt of file access requests, unit assignment for processing, and transfers to/returns from the copy center.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: File disclosure requests come directly to the unit of issuance for sanitization and charging party contact. Because the supervisor and/or investigator is most familiar with the closed file, it is more efficient for them to perform these tasks. By receiving the requests directly, mail bottlenecks in the technical information unit or elsewhere are avoided. The office's ISAs and OAAs can better manage their time to contact the charging parties for signature of nondisclosure agreements and office appointments to review files when the requests come directly to them. Using the database, we are able to tell a querying party the exact location and stage of processing of a file disclosure request. All requests for access to files that do not specifically state FOIA are processed under "Section 83" procedures. Specific FOIA requests, including ADEA FOIA requests go Legal. FOIA requests for disclosure of Title VII and ADA charge files are converted to "Section 83" processing with the concurrence of the requesting party. The number of FOIA requests and the amount of FOIA processing in the office has been significantly reduced as a result of using this model. No single unit or employee is overburdened with file disclosure duties because of the distribution of responsibility within enforcement.
Lessons Learned: Enforcement, Legal, and Charge Receipt staff were consulted in the development of the notice, the development of the database, and the redistribution of responsibilities. This enabled useful refinement of the process by the end-users and implementers. The ISAs and OAAs contributed significantly to the design of the program.
Contact Person Cynthia G. Pierre, Deputy Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-0684 FAX (312) 353-7355
Descriptive Title of Model: Operation Jump Start
Detailed Description of Model: The Charlotte District Office initiated "Operation Jump Start," a program designed to launch FY 1997, with a focus on finding more A cases and reducing the B case inventory. Working intensely and closely together, investigators and attorneys in Charlotte reviewed 806 B cases in a one-week period of time.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: As a result of the project, the Charlotte office settled 211 charges and identified 131 A cases and 32 A cases with class potential.
Lessons Learned: Through investigative and legal collaboration, the office realized a greater impact on the B charge inventory, than would have occurred without the joint effort. Also, settlements increased; A inventory increased; and class cases were identified.
Contact Person Marsha Drane, District Director
Office Charlotte District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (704) 344-6744 FAX (704) 344-6734
Descriptive Title of Model: Multiple Charge Resolution Project
Detailed Description of Model: The Los Angeles District Office (LADO) initiated a charge resolution project which focused on Respondents who had at least five charges pending in the LADO Enforcement Inventory. There were approximately fifty employers in this category. All fifty employers were contacted to assess their willingness to resolve the pending charges in a cooperative and expeditious manner. Meetings were scheduled with Respondents and their representatives. The LADO was represented by the District Director, Enforcement Manager, Enforcement Supervisor and assigned Investigator. Respondents were to bring to the meeting all of the information they felt was necessary to resolve the charges. Additionally, Respondents were asked to bring Representatives authorized to sign settlement agreements. The meetings involved detailed discussions of each charge and possible resolution. Charging parties were contacted during the meeting for their input. If additional information was needed, Respondents contacted their offices, and the information was faxed to the meeting.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: The employer meetings with one Respondent resulted in the resolution of seventeen charges. Although only one charge was settled, two of the 17 resolutions were Reasonable Cause findings, seven were No Cause Findings, and seven were closed administratively. Some non-participating Respondents became aware of this project and contacted LADO asking to be included.
Lessons Learned: The success of the effort with the above-referenced employer revealed that multiple charge resolution efforts should not be a special project but a continuing and important part of an effective enforcement program. Consistent and continuing efforts in this area by Enforcement and discussions of the benefits/results with Employer groups may encourage non- participating Respondents to willingly engage in these type of cooperative resolution efforts.
Contact Person Bettie Isiaka, Enforcement Manager
Office Los Angeles District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (213) 894-1010 FAX (213) 894-1118
Descriptive Title of Model: Use of Intake Information Sheets for Charging Parties
Detailed Description of Model: Prior and/or subsequent to filing, the Washington Field Office provides charging parties with information sheets regarding the rights and responsibilities of charging parties and EEOC's procedures including, but not limited to the PCHP. These documents serve as a reference for all charging parties regarding what they can expect from the EEOC and what EEOC expects from them.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Use of these forms ensures that charging parties are adequately informed about our procedures and other key issues including, but not limited to, the right to file, the PCHPs, NRTS, ADR and conciliation.
Contact Person Tulio L. Diaz, Jr., Director
Office Washington Field Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (202) 275-7377 FAX (202)275-6834
Descriptive Title of Model: Intake Questionnaires
Detailed Description of Model: At the Washington Field Office (WFO), potential charging parties are given questionnaires and asked to bring the completed questionnaire when they return for their intake appointment. WFO uses questionnaires which are tailored to the issue(s) raised by potential charging parties when they make initial inquiry. In addition to the questionnaire, potential charging parties are given a fact sheet which explains, in specific terms, the kind of evidence EEOC is seeking.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: By being given the relevant questionnaire prior to the intake interview, potential charging parties are provided ample time to collect and organize evidence relevant to their charges. This leads to a more focused and effective intake interview, thus resulting in a valuable, more accurate priority charge assessment by the intake investigator.
Contact Person Tulio L. Diaz, Jr., Director
Office Washington Field Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (202) 275-7377 FAX (202) 275-6834
Descriptive Title of Model: Investigator Analysis/Assessment of Charge
Detailed Description of Model: Upon taking a charge, each investigator in the Chicago District Office completes a charge assessment form, describing the investigator's structured, selective assessment of facts (including significant witnesses and comparators, if applicable) as stated by the charging party, including the investigator's perception, evaluation and analysis thereof. Actual charging party or witness statements or other raw information is excluded. The investigator is required to record his/her summary assessment of the charge, indicating the recommended charge category (A0, A1, B1, B2, or C) and the rationale for category selection. A brief description of additional information needed from either CP or R to resolve or further investigate the matter is also required. For category A and B charges, the investigator must record settlement information, whether CP wants to participate in the mediation program and CP's initial settlement request. The investigator's analysis of settlement prospects is requested on the form. Investigators also may record any other information he/she deems relevant to charge assessment in a final section of the form. The assessment codes from which the investigator must choose include: A0-possible cause, too early to determine strength; A1- projected litigation vehicle; A2-probable cause, but not likely litigation vehicle; B1-investigation needed; B2-close on position statement; and C-close immediately.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Investigators enhance critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills through repeated practice. By not relying on a checklist approach, investigators and their supervisors are encouraged to articulate their analysis and knowledge of the charge. Actual empowerment of investigators occurs in this manner because their judgement is valued in making the initial charge assessment. In most cases, supervisors agree with the investigator recommendations. A more than sufficient number of A cases and class cases have been identified by investigators for the office's potential NEP/LEP selection pool.
Lessons Learned: Investigators and supervisors benefit from periodic refresher training on charge categorization assessments.
Contact Person Cynthia G. Pierre, Deputy Director
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-0684 FAX (312) 353-7355
Descriptive Title of Model: Intake/Settlement Project
Detailed Description of Model: A major redesign of the Charlotte District Office charge receipt function occurred during Fiscal Year 1997. In addition to the normal intake duties, Investigators in the office's dedicated intake unit perform other investigative responsibilities, such as contacting witnesses while charging parties are still in the office; contacting employers directly to advance the investigation or negotiate settlements; and close category C cases.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: As a result of this approach, investigators in the charge receipt function have obtained a quarter of a million dollars in benefits. Some intake investigators are resolving charges at an annualized rate of 100+ resolutions with 10%+ settlement rate. Many charges are resolved within weeks of filing.
Contact Person Marsha Drane, District Director
Office Charlotte District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (704) 344-6744 FAX (704) 344-6734
Descriptive Title of Model: Automated DOS LAN-based system which generates requests for information (RFIs), investigative plans, and investigator's memoranda for A and B cases.
Detailed Description of Model: The New York District has developed a WordPerfect macro driven automated system that accepts input from the investigator and automatically generates drafts of an investigative plan and RFI for a B or A charge. This system ensures that all the elements of proof for the issues and bases alleged are addressed in the initial RFI and that a baseline quality standard for every investigation initiated by RFI is maintained. The documents may then be tailored to the specific allegations of the charge. Comparative data is routinely sought at the inception of the investigation expediting the resolution of the case.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: This system has improved the quality of A and B investigations and has contributed to high productivity by properly focusing the investigator on the appropriate elements of proof and seeking the correct evidence to launch the investigation properly. The system is used right after the charge is taken and helps to facilitate rapid re-categorization of cases based on the RFI responses.
Lessons Learned: This system helps to ensure baseline quality at the inception of most investigations. It is not used for cases where the charge is served in person or where the appropriate initial investigatory step is to secure witness testimony or conduct on-site investigatory activity. It is, however, used in an estimated 80% of all A and B investigations. The documents generated require some tailoring through editing, however, nearly 90% of the text can be used as generated, saving investigators considerable amounts of drafting time. Investigators find the system useful and efficient.
Contact Person Richard Alpert, Deputy Director
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8405 FAX (212) 748-8464
BBS and Internet E-mail Address NWYKRBA email@example.com
Descriptive Title of Model: Cause Board
Detailed Description of Model: The Indianapolis District Office's Cause Board meets every week to give substantive guidance and track the development of cases with cause potential. Each investigative unit meets with the Cause Board once a month on a rotating basis. Participants include the Deputy Director, the Enforcement Supervisor, the Investigators (one at a time), the Regional Attorney and/or the Supervisory Trial Attorney, and the Trial Attorney assigned to the unit. We discuss every cause board case every month, even if no progress has been made, to ensure that no case gets lost in the shuffle. The Investigators report on the status of the cases, make suggestions for the next steps and raise questions for discussion. We all consult about what should be done, and target dates are set by the Deputy in consultation with the Supervisor and the Investigator. Tracking is handled by the Deputy Director, who informally chairs the meeting. He maintains a list of cases being tracked by each unit, which is updated and distributed to all participants at each meeting, and notes what is to be accomplished by the next meeting. An attorney keeps notes on a one page case summary to preserve the history of our discussions about a case. Between Cause Board meetings, the Investigators maintain informal contacts with the Trial Attorneys to give them an opportunity to review files and give more detailed advice, when it can be done off the cuff. For more in-depth reviews, the file may be formally referred to the Legal Unit. When we agree that a case is ready for a cause recommendation, the investigator writes the IM and LOD, information to be discussed with Respondent during the PDI, and a proposed conciliation agreement. If the cause board decides that a case is no cause, no further review by legal is required. Cases are tracked until conciliation is successful or has failed.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Our number of cause cases has increased steadily each year, and the processing time for cause cases has decreased. Before Cause Board, many cases were returned by legal for additional investigation. The meetings serve as an informal training device to develop good evidence gathering techniques and sound analytical approaches. They have also fostered a sense of teamwork between legal and enforcement. We have recently instituted similar procedures to track class and Commissioner's charges.
Lessons Learned: This approach results in well-developed cases and ensures that cases with cause potential are given appropriate emphasis among competing priorities. It also enables legal and enforcement to reach consensus on which cases should or should not be pursued further in a timely manner. Because the Investigators identify and present their cases, make recommendations and raise questions, they are focused on efficient and effective development of the investigations. The meetings allow for collegial exchange of information in a non- threatening atmosphere. Developing the appropriate climate and achieving results required sustained effort over time.
Contact Person Dan G. Harter, Deputy Director
Office Indianapolis District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (317) 226-6418 FAX (317) 226-7953
Descriptive Title of Model: Legal/Investigative Interaction in the New York District Office
Detailed Description of Model: Each investigations unit is assigned a Trial Attorney to assist in the development of A1 cases. Trial Attorneys regularly meet with Unit Supervisors and/or individual investigators to answer questions and map out strategies for the investigation. If a particularly strong or novel charge is filed at intake, Unit Supervisors are encouraged to notify the Trial Attorney immediately so that the Legal Unit can assess the allegations and be involved in the early stages of the investigation.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Cooperation between the Legal Unit and Investigative Units from intake though each stage of the investigatory process has allowed the NYDO to target and develop charges which result in significant litigation for the Commission.
Lessons Learned: Early identification and prioritization of potential litigation vehicles and the development of investigative strategies allow the investigators to focus their energy in an efficient manner.
Contact Person Anna M. Stathis, Supervisory Trial Attorney
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8494 FAX (212) 748-8465
Descriptive Title of Model: Hybrid Units
Detailed Description of Model: Hybrid units are defined as specially-created units comprised of both Investigators and Trial Attorneys who are supervised or managed, at least in part, by the Legal Unit, with the purpose of focusing work and resources on an inventory of priority cases, often class cases. The hybrid unit is one of the structural experiments which has been attempted in several Districts where there exist particularly positive and cooperative relations between Legal and Enforcement management personnel. The five offices which have utilized hybrid units during the period of PCHP and NEP/LEP implementation are: Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and Seattle. Hybrid units were assembled by either seeking volunteers or assigning Investigators. Some, if not all, of the hybrid units are also developing Commissioner's charges as part of their inventory.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Benefits which have been identified as the result of the hybrid unit experiments include: speedier preparation of bigger cases, preliminary injunctions and TRO's; more careful development and analysis of class cases, leading to conciliations for substantially better relief; thoroughness of investigation, which results in savings of time and resources typically invested in litigation; and valuable class training and experience for both Investigators and Attorneys.
Lessons Learned: The things which have enhanced performance of hybrid units include: the lead role of supervisory Investigative staff in administrative matters; the maintenance of a smaller, more selective caseload; and the participation of high-performance Investigators. Some of the factors which have been cited as having a negative effect on the potential of hybrid units include: lack of clerical support; mail-in charge response and intake duties which consume as much as 50% of Investigator time; and inexperience of both Investigators and Attorneys with class case development.
Contact Persons
Issie L. Jenkins, District Director
Baltimore District Office
(410) 962-4061
John P. Rowe, District Director
Chicago District Office
(312) 353-8550
Jacqueline R. Bradley, District Director
Dallas District Office
(214) 655-3300
H. Joan Ehrlich, District Director
Houston District Office
(713) 209-3379
Jeanette M. Leino, District Director
Seattle District Office
(206) 220-6870
Descriptive Title of Model: Hybrid Unit
Detailed Description of Model: The Chicago District Office's Hybrid Unit includes an Enforcement Manager, a Supervisory Trial Attorney (STA), an Enforcement Team Leader, two Trial Attorneys and three GS-12 Investigators. The unit's mandate is to investigate large pattern and practice or class litigation vehicles at a rapid pace through early and intensive Legal/Investigative interaction utilizing a team approach. For appraisal purposes, the investigators and team leader report to the Enforcement Manager, while the trial attorneys report to the STA. Case selection and case development, however, occur by consensus of the group.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Since its inception in November 1996, the Hybrid Unit has investigated two large pattern and practice cases based on race and age to cause findings. Litigation has been recommended on the race case. A small class sexual harassment case was investigated to cause and litigation filed within three months of receiving the case in the unit. In addition, two other Title VII policy cases were investigated to cause and successfully conciliated. A TRO was filed and successfully concluded in a class racial harassment case within 38 days of charge receipt. In recent months, cause LODs were issued in four additional class cases involving multiple charges. The hybrid unit is currently generating more litigation vehicles than the Chicago District Office Legal Unit can file in a period (fiscal year), although other units also produce litigation cases. Current caseload of the hybrid unit is 17-20 charges.
Lessons Learned: The Hybrid Unit had to become very selective in its acceptance of charges/cases for investigation. Once the Unit became well known within office, many investigators and supervisors wanted to transfer "class" or "pattern and practice" cases to the unit. Close scrutiny of the cases was required to ensure the cases met the criteria for A1 cases with priority NEP/LEP issues.
Contact Person Julianne Bowman, Enforcement Manager
Office Chicago District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (312) 353-7623 FAX (312) 353-7355
Descriptive Title of Model: A/C Team - Specialized Unit
Detailed Description of Model: The Seattle District Office has established an A/C investigative team of eight investigators and 1.5 supervisors, assisted by 2.5 attorneys and one STA, whose purpose is to investigate and conciliate NEP/LEP and A2 cases and close C cases. Attorneys are assigned to specific investigators for case development. An informal "round table" discussion is regularly facilitated by one of the trial attorneys; the group discusses and decides on cases brought before the group. The NEP/LEP cases and A2 cases are tracked separately. The A/C team also handles overflow smaller systemic investigations as needed, when the Systemic unit has more work than it can handle.
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Most of the investigative resources have been directed to work on A cases, which have resulted in either substantial relief conciliations or litigation of non-systemic cases. Smaller case inventories allow investigators maximum flexibility to move quickly to work on high priority cases as they come into the unit. There has been a close working relationship established between the investigators and attorneys in the unit.
Lessons Learned: Keeping inventories small to assure maximum flexibility to move quickly to work on high priority cases is difficult to maintain. The number of A2 (non litigation) cases is substantially larger than A1 cases, which means the pool of eventual litigation cases is small. It is difficult to maintain the discipline of focusing time and effort on A1 cases when there are so many A2s that demand attention. Continuous attorney-investigator dialogue takes discipline, especially as tours of duty conflict. Communicating to non-A/C team staff that the A/C team gets results because the rest of the office is doing other key work on other cases is important for morale. The unpredictable ebb and flow of charge intake time affects the availability of A/C team investigators for priority NEP/LEP cases and presents challenges to planning investigative resources.
Contact Person Michael Fetzer, Deputy Director
Office Seattle District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (206)220-6875 FAX (206) 220-6911
Descriptive Title of Model: Legal/Investigative Interaction with Local and Area Offices
Detailed Description of Model: The New York District Office assigns Trial Attorneys as liaisons to the Boston Area and Buffalo Local Offices. The attorneys make regular visits, every four to six weeks, to review and give guidance on pending A1 cases and to identify new potential litigation vehicles. The Trial Attorney meets with the Office Director and the assigned Investigator to discuss each case and mutually decide on the next step in the investigation. The Trial Attorneys are, of course, accessible by telephone between visits so that there are no delays or disruptions in the investigations
Results or Outcomes Resulting from Use of Model: Regular and intensive interaction between the Legal Unit and the Area and Local Offices has resulted in solid litigation vehicles for the Commission.
Lessons Learned: Regular cooperation and communication with an investigatory unit that is geographically removed from the District Office can be achieved and is essential in developing the kinds of cases the Commission desires to litigate.
Contact Person Anna M. Stathis, Supervisory Trial Attorney
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8494 FAX (212) 748-8465
Descriptive Title of Model: Legal/Investigative Interaction in the New York District Office
Detailed Description of Model: Training, communication and an "open door" policy have been stressed in legal/investigative interactions. Trial Attorneys have been encouraged to take a "hands on" approach. Investigators have been encouraged to see their ideas and questions as a vital part of case development. At its most successful, the interaction between the legal and investigative units in the NYDO has been marked by the free flow of information between staff, without regard to title.
Results or Outcomes from Use of Model: Benefits include improved communication between Legal and Investigative Units, which, in turn, has resulted in more efficient and productive identification and development of charges and litigation.
Lessons Learned: In sum, NYDO's Legal/Investigative teams have been successful largely because of the emphasis on training, informal communication, and the "open door" and "hands on" policies. Communication has been essential to the team building between NYDO's legal and Investigative units. At its best, that communication builds understanding, trust and confidence-- necessary to any successful team. Initiatives and resources (such as phone lists, wide area networks, modems, bulletin boards) that promote the free access to and flow of information between offices will undoubtedly benefit the agency's team building efforts.
Contact Person Andrée M. Peart, Trial Attorney
Office New York District Office
Telephone and Fax Numbers (212) 748-8502 FAX (212) 748-8465
BBS Address NWYKAMP
National Representatives
ABA's ABA/EEOC Liaison Committee
American Arbitration Association
American Association of Retired Persons
American Bar Association
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
Asian American Bar Association
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Japanese American Citizens League
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF)
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems
National Council of LaRaza
National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA)
Organization of Chinese Americans
Women Employed Institute
Women's Legal Defense Fund
State and Regional Representatives
African American Longshore Coalition
Alliance of Black Women Attorneys
Allred, Maroko and Goldberg
American Civil Liberties Union
American Indian Manpower Council
Arlington Hispanic Advisory Council
Arizona Asian American Bar Association
Arizona Center for Disability Law
Arizona Interagency Farm worker Coalition
Asian Chamber of Commerce
Asian Pacific Center
Baltimore Jewish Council
Black Citizens for Justice
Black Employees Association
Black Firefighter Association of Dallas
Black State Employee Association
Boston Human Rights Commission
Bureau of National Affairs
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
California Women's Law Center
Cambridge Human Rights Commission
Cambridge Disabilities Commission
Career Development Center
Catholic Charities Immigration Project
Center for Disability and Elder Law
City and County of Denver, Councilman's Office
Chicago Women-in-Trades
Chicanos por La Causa
Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Colorado Advisory Council, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Colorado Association of Public Employees
Colorado Civil Rights Division
Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Colorado Department of Human Services
Colorado Hispanic Bar Association
Colorado Muslim Society
Colorado State Personnel Office
Council on Disability Rights
Dallas Intertribal Council
Denver Region, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Denver Region, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights
Disability Law Center
Disability Medical Center at Loyola Law School
Dispute Resolution Services
Ellen Buckley Law Office
Federation for Civic Action, Inc.
Federal Hispanic Employment Program
Friendly House
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
Governor's Commission on Hispanic Affairs (Maryland)
Governor's Office for Individuals with Disabilities (Maryland)
Greater Boston Legal Services, Asian Outreach Unit
Gregson and Pixler
Haitian Multi-Service Center
Hispanic Public Affairs Committee
Holyland Foundation
Japanese American Bar Association
Japanese American Citizens League
King, Minnig, Clexton and Feola, LLC
Korean-American Business and Professional Women
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Lao Family Community, Inc.
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Legal Eagles of Los Angeles
Legal Service Industries
Leland, Parachini, Steinberg, Matzger and Melnick
Los Angeles City, Commission on the Status of Women
Los Angeles County Chicano Employee Association
Martin Luther King Center
Maryland Commission for Women
Maryland State Office of Asian Pacific Affairs
Massachusetts Association of Hispanic Attorneys
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Civil Rights Division
Massachusetts Commission for the Blind
Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Massachusetts Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities
Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants
Massachusetts Department of Mental Health
Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association
Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission
Mayor's Office on Immigrant Affairs
Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council
Miller, Lane and Killmer
Milwaukee Center for Independence
Monumental Bar Association
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Association of ADA Coordinators
National Council of Negro Women
National Women's Political Caucus
Newcomers Program
"9 to 5" Working Women
National Organization for Women
Office of Ben Nighthorse Campbell, United States Senator
Office of Donald P. McDonald, PC
Organization of Chinese Americans
Pederson and Taylor, LLC
Professional Utility Minority Employee Association
Project Reach
PUSH/Rainbow Coalition
Stanzel and Koehn
State of California Department of Justice
State of California EDD Disability Insurance Field Office
Tarrant County Asian American Chamber of Commerce
The Disability Group, Inc.
Thresholds, Inc.
University of Baltimore
University of Massachusetts Center for Labor Research
Urban League
Valle Del Sol
Washington Lawyers' Committer for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
Vietnamese American Civic Association
Wesley Community Center
Women's Law Center
Women's State-Wide Legislative Network
Wisconsin Employment Lawyers Association
Wisconsin State Bar
Input from National Representatives
Equal Employment Advisory Council
Society for Human Resource Management
Input from Regional or Local Representatives
ABM Industries
Alexander and Alexander
Arizona Affirmative Action Association
Baker and Hostetler
Bay Area Regional Transport (BART)
Bergner's Department Stores
Bookhardt and O'Toole
Burlington Northern/Santa Fe
California Department of Corrections
Caplan and Earnest
City of Aurora
City of Dallas
City of Fort Collins
City of Milwaukee
City of Oakland
Colorado Barricade
Colorado State Personnel Board
Commercial Credit
CUC Travel
Davis, Graham and Stubbs
Denver Convention Center
Denver Housing Authority
Denver Regional Transportation Center
Denver Water Department
Destination Hotels and Resorts
EIL Instruments
Fairfield and Woods, PC
Foley and Lardner
Fox Tate
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
Gorsuch Kirgis, LLC
Greater Baltimore Medical Center
Haight Consulting
Home, Roberts and Owen
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Johns Hopkins University
Kutak Rock
Latham and Watkins
Litt and Marquez
Litton Industries
Lone Star Gas
Long and Jaudon
Los Angeles City, Employee Services Division
Los Angeles County, Office of Affirmative Action Compliance
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Los Angeles Unified School District, Office of Staff Relations
Los Angeles Unified School District, Transportation Branch
Mediation Plus
Mediation Center
Mental Health Corporation of Denver
Merrill Lynch
Michael, Best and Friedrich
Miles and Epstem, PC
Morgan, Lewis and Bockius
Mountain States Employers' Council
Munger, Tolles and Olson
National Renewable Energy Lab
Northrup Grumman
O'Dowd Law Offices
O'Melveny and Myers
Pacific Gas and Electric
Patuxent Medical Group
Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
PBG Cosmetics
Phillip J. Griego and Associates
Proskauer, Rose, Goetz and Mendelsohn
Pulte Mortgage
Quarles and Brady
Rothgerber, Appel, Powers and Johnson
Sanwa Bank
Sony Pictures
Southern California Gas Company
Southern California Mediation Association
Spectacor Management Group, Denver Convention Complex
The Aerospace Company
Times Mirror Company
UCLA, Staff Affirmative Action Office
United Airlines
Union Bank of California
Venable, Baetjer and Howard, LLP
Vickers, Inc.
White and Steele
National Labor Relations Board (General Counsel)
United States Department of Labor/OFCCP
United States Department of Labor/Women's Bureau
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Albuquerque District Office
Atlanta District Office
Baltimore District Office
Boston Area Office
Charlotte District Office
Chicago District Office
Dallas District Office
Los Angeles District Office
Memphis District Office
Milwaukee District Office
Newark Area Office
Philadelphia District Office
Phoenix District Office
San Diego Area Office
San Francisco District Office
Seattle District Office
Chairman's Office - Consultation with the Chairman and Executive Director; participation of Chairman's staff on Task Forces
Commissioner Jones' Office - Consultation with Commissioner Jones; participation of Commissioner Jones' staff on Task Force
Office of Field Programs - Briefing sessions by Field Management Programs staff; extensive consultation with Director of OFP; participation of OFP staff on Task Forces
Office of General Counsel - Briefing sessions by OGC staff; extensive consultation with the General Counsel; participation of OGC staff on Task Forces
Office of Legal Counsel - Consultation with Legal Counsel; participation of OLC staff on Task Forces
Memorandum requesting input from District, Area and Local Office Directors
Memorandum requesting input from Regional Attorneys
Union Representation
Participation on Task Forces by Officers of National Council of EEOC Locals
Individual Employees
Memorandum requesting input distributed to each Commission employee (headquarters and field)