CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "fiscal year" to "fiscal year"
m (Text replacement - "fiscal year" to "fiscal year") |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|United States government agency enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination}} | {{Short description|United States government agency enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination}} | ||
{{ | {{Organization | ||
|OrganizationName= Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | |||
|OrganizationType= Independent Agencies | |||
|Mission= To prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination and advance equal opportunity for all in the workplace. EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. | |||
|OrganizationExecutive= Chair | |||
|Employees= 2200 | |||
|Budget= $388 million (FY 2022) | |||
|Website= https://www.eeoc.gov | |||
|Services= Investigating discrimination charges; Mediation; Litigation; Outreach and education; | |||
|ParentOrganization= | |||
|CreationLegislation= Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | |||
|Regulations= Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Americans with Disabilities Act; Equal Pay Act; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act | |||
|HeadquartersLocation= 38.893714, -77.026682 | |||
|HeadquartersAddress= 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507, USA | |||
}} | |||
{{Infobox government agency | {{Infobox government agency | ||
| agency_name = Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | | agency_name = Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | ||
| Line 50: | Line 64: | ||
==== Alternative dispute resolution ==== | ==== Alternative dispute resolution ==== | ||
Because all federal agencies are required to offer an [[alternative dispute resolution]],<ref>{{Cite web|title=Alternative Dispute Resolution|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alternative_dispute_resolution|access-date=2022-01-27|website=[[Legal Information Institute]]|language=en|archive-date=2023-01-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230118055702/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alternative_dispute_resolution|url-status=live}}</ref> the EEOC offers [[mediation]] with external or internal professional mediators as a voluntary alternative to [[Lawsuit|litigation]], which typically results in faster resolutions.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Mediation {{!}} U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/mediation|access-date=2022-01-27|website=EEOC|archive-date=2022-01-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220127081340/https://www.eeoc.gov/mediation|url-status=live}}</ref> In the 2020 | Because all federal agencies are required to offer an [[alternative dispute resolution]],<ref>{{Cite web|title=Alternative Dispute Resolution|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alternative_dispute_resolution|access-date=2022-01-27|website=[[Legal Information Institute]]|language=en|archive-date=2023-01-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230118055702/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alternative_dispute_resolution|url-status=live}}</ref> the EEOC offers [[mediation]] with external or internal professional mediators as a voluntary alternative to [[Lawsuit|litigation]], which typically results in faster resolutions.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Mediation {{!}} U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/mediation|access-date=2022-01-27|website=EEOC|archive-date=2022-01-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220127081340/https://www.eeoc.gov/mediation|url-status=live}}</ref> In the 2020 fiscal year (FY), the EEOC reported more than 6,000 mediations conducted recovering nearly half of the $333.2 million in relief from mediation, [[conciliation]], and [[Settlement (litigation)|settlement]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|date=2 April 2021|title=EEOC FY 2020 Statistics: EEOC's Recovery on Behalf of Employees Dramatically Increased, Number of Discrimination Charges at All-Time Low|url=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/eeoc-fy-2020-statistics-eeoc-s-recovery-9089875/|access-date=2022-01-27|website=JDSupra|language=en|archive-date=2022-01-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220128053033/https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/eeoc-fy-2020-statistics-eeoc-s-recovery-9089875/|url-status=live}}</ref> Mediation is offered, or can be requested, prior to investigation, or after a finding of discrimination has been issued, during conciliation. If the EEOC does not find merit in the charge, they will not offer, nor allow for a request, for mediation.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Questions And Answers About Mediation {{!}} U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/questions-and-answers-about-mediation|access-date=2022-01-27|website=EEOC|archive-date=2022-01-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220128053025/https://www.eeoc.gov/questions-and-answers-about-mediation|url-status=live}}</ref> The average mediation with the EEOC takes three months.<ref name=":2"/> | ||
==== Respondent's position statement and investigation ==== | ==== Respondent's position statement and investigation ==== | ||
| Line 94: | Line 108: | ||
==Staffing, workload, and backlog== | ==Staffing, workload, and backlog== | ||
In 1975, when the backlog reached more than 100,000 charges to be investigated, President [[Gerald Ford]]'s full requested budget of $62 million was approved. A "Backlog Unit" was created in | In 1975, when the backlog reached more than 100,000 charges to be investigated, President [[Gerald Ford]]'s full requested budget of $62 million was approved. A "Backlog Unit" was created in Philadelphia in 1978 to resolve the thousands of federal equal employment complaints inherited from the [[United States Civil Service Commission|Civil Service Commission]]. In 1980, [[Eleanor Holmes Norton]] began re-characterizing the backlog cases as "workload" in her reports to Congress, thus fulfilling her promise to eliminate the backlog.<ref>"Enforcing the Civil Rights Act: Fighting Racism, Sexism and the Ku Klux Klan. The Story of the Miami EEOC's First Class Action Trial." James Keeney, 2012 Civil Rights Publishing, Sarasota, FL</ref> | ||
In June 2006, civil rights and labor union advocates publicly complained that the effectiveness of the EEOC was being undermined by budget and staff cuts and the outsourcing of complaint screening to a private contractor whose workers were poorly trained. In 2006, a partial budget freeze prevented the agency from filling vacant jobs, and its staff had shrunk by nearly 20 percent from 2001. A Bush administration official stated that the cuts had been made because it was necessary to direct more money to defense and homeland security.<ref name="wapo06-13-06">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301418.html|title=EEOC Is Hobbled, Groups Contend: Case Backlog Grows as Its Staff Is Slashed, Critics Say|last=Lee|first=Christopher|newspaper=Washington Post|date=June 14, 2006|access-date=September 20, 2017|archive-date=November 21, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161121134511/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301418.html|url-status=live}}</ref> By 2008, the EEOC had lost 25 percent of its staff over the previous eight years, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. The number of complaints to investigate grew to 95,400 in fiscal 2008, up 26 percent from 2006.<ref name="WPost20090331">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html|title=EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules|last=Vogel|first=Steve|newspaper=Washington Post|date=March 31, 2009|page=A15|access-date=September 20, 2017|archive-date=March 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170313065112/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html|url-status=live}}</ref> | In June 2006, civil rights and labor union advocates publicly complained that the effectiveness of the EEOC was being undermined by budget and staff cuts and the outsourcing of complaint screening to a private contractor whose workers were poorly trained. In 2006, a partial budget freeze prevented the agency from filling vacant jobs, and its staff had shrunk by nearly 20 percent from 2001. A Bush administration official stated that the cuts had been made because it was necessary to direct more money to defense and homeland security.<ref name="wapo06-13-06">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301418.html|title=EEOC Is Hobbled, Groups Contend: Case Backlog Grows as Its Staff Is Slashed, Critics Say|last=Lee|first=Christopher|newspaper=Washington Post|date=June 14, 2006|access-date=September 20, 2017|archive-date=November 21, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161121134511/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301418.html|url-status=live}}</ref> By 2008, the EEOC had lost 25 percent of its staff over the previous eight years, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. The number of complaints to investigate grew to 95,400 in fiscal 2008, up 26 percent from 2006.<ref name="WPost20090331">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html|title=EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules|last=Vogel|first=Steve|newspaper=Washington Post|date=March 31, 2009|page=A15|access-date=September 20, 2017|archive-date=March 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170313065112/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
| Line 110: | Line 124: | ||
==Successes== | ==Successes== | ||
On May 1, 2013, a [[Davenport, Iowa]] jury awarded the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissission damages totaling $240 million — the largest verdict in the federal agency's history — for disability discrimination and severe abuse.<ref name="EEOC">{{cite web|title=Jury Awards $240 Million for Long-Term Abuse of Workers with Intellectual Disabilities|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-1-13b.cfm|publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|access-date=29 April 2018|language=en|date=1 May 2013|archive-date=29 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180429093245/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-1-13b.cfm|url-status=live}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> The jury agreed with the EEOC that Texas-based Hill County Farms, doing business in Iowa as Henry's Turkey Service, subjected a group of 32 men with intellectual disabilities to severe abuse and discrimination for a period between 2007 and 2009, after 20 years of similar mistreatment.<ref name="EEOC" /> This victory received international attention and was profiled in '' | On May 1, 2013, a [[Davenport, Iowa]] jury awarded the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissission damages totaling $240 million — the largest verdict in the federal agency's history — for disability discrimination and severe abuse.<ref name="EEOC">{{cite web|title=Jury Awards $240 Million for Long-Term Abuse of Workers with Intellectual Disabilities|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-1-13b.cfm|publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|access-date=29 April 2018|language=en|date=1 May 2013|archive-date=29 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180429093245/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-1-13b.cfm|url-status=live}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> The jury agreed with the EEOC that Texas-based Hill County Farms, doing business in Iowa as Henry's Turkey Service, subjected a group of 32 men with intellectual disabilities to severe abuse and discrimination for a period between 2007 and 2009, after 20 years of similar mistreatment.<ref name="EEOC" /> This victory received international attention and was profiled in ''The New York Times''.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/09/us/the-boys-in-the-bunkhouse.html|title=The 'Boys' in the Bunkhouse|first=Dan|last=Barry|newspaper=The New York Times|date=8 March 2014|access-date=28 April 2018|archive-date=17 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180517014016/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/09/us/the-boys-in-the-bunkhouse.html|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in an [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores|8–1 decision]] written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] that an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant if the employer was motivated by avoiding the need to accommodate a religious practice. Such behavior violates the prohibition on religious discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<ref name="EEOC 2">{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Rules in Favor of EEOC in Abercrombie Religious Discrimination Case|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-1-15.cfm|publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|access-date=29 April 2018|language=en|date=1 June 2015|archive-date=22 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181022141032/http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-1-15.cfm|url-status=live}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> EEOC General Counsel David Lopez hailed the decision. "At its root, this case is about defending the quintessentially American principles of religious freedom and tolerance," Lopez said. "This decision is a victory for our increasingly diverse society and we applaud Samantha Elauf's courage and tenacity in pursuing this matter."<ref name="EEOC 2" /> | On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in an [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores|8–1 decision]] written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] that an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant if the employer was motivated by avoiding the need to accommodate a religious practice. Such behavior violates the prohibition on religious discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<ref name="EEOC 2">{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Rules in Favor of EEOC in Abercrombie Religious Discrimination Case|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-1-15.cfm|publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|access-date=29 April 2018|language=en|date=1 June 2015|archive-date=22 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181022141032/http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-1-15.cfm|url-status=live}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> EEOC General Counsel David Lopez hailed the decision. "At its root, this case is about defending the quintessentially American principles of religious freedom and tolerance," Lopez said. "This decision is a victory for our increasingly diverse society and we applaud Samantha Elauf's courage and tenacity in pursuing this matter."<ref name="EEOC 2" /> | ||
| Line 354: | Line 368: | ||
| style="border-top-style: none;" | {{zwsp}} | | style="border-top-style: none;" | {{zwsp}} | ||
| style="border-top-style: none;" | August 13, 2001 | | style="border-top-style: none;" | August 13, 2001 | ||
| rowspan="3" | | | rowspan="3" | George W. Bush | ||
|- style="background:#ffe1e1" | |- style="background:#ffe1e1" | ||
| 12 | | 12 | ||
| Line 450: | Line 464: | ||
*<nowiki>https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Federal_Civil_Penalties_Inflation_Adjustment_Act_of_1990</nowiki> | *<nowiki>https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Federal_Civil_Penalties_Inflation_Adjustment_Act_of_1990</nowiki> | ||
{{authority control}} | {{authority control}} | ||