Bookmark and Share
Overview:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for eliminating all forms of discrimination in the workplace. Through development and passage of legislation, and its enforcement arm, the agency seeks to reverse the trend of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and retaliation, as well as age, gender, sexuality, genetics, and physical ability. While its mission is designed to help make the American workplace free of trouble, EEOC’s own operations have sometimes suffered from problems. Recently, the commission moved its Washington D.C., office into a “transitional” neighborhood, much to the dismay of its employees, and it opened a national call center that had union and Democratic members of Congress quite upset.

more
History:

In the early 1960s, there was growing unrest in the country about racial discrimination and segregation, which came to light as a result of the Civil Rights Movement. In the spring of 1963, demonstrators were attacked with dogs, sprayed with water hoses and arrested or jailed. On June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation, and eight days later, he sent new legislation to Congress. Opposition was fierce, but in August, 250,000 Americans marched in Washington D.C., and Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

 

In November, President Kennedy was assassinated, leaving the outcome of the civil rights legislation in doubt. But his successor, Lyndon Johnson, a veteran of Capitol Hill, took up the charge and utilized his well-honed legislative skills to push Congress into finishing what Kennedy had started.

 

On July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. Among its goals was the elimination of discrimination in the workplace through the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became the most famous aspect of the new legislation, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, and retaliation.

 

The newly created five-member bipartisan commission in charge of the EEOC was given the power to receive, investigate, and conciliate complaints. Only individuals could bring lawsuits, which the EEOC could then refer to the Department of Justice for litigation.

 

In 1971, Congress conducted public hearings on proposed amendments to Title VII. It concluded that despite its best efforts, the EEOC had failed to stem discrimination. So Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which gave the EEOC litigation enforcement authority. This allowed it to use dispute resolution between workers and employers, such as mediation.

 

The bill also expanded the EEOC’s jurisdiction. It could now sue nongovernmental employers, unions and agencies, file pattern or practice lawsuits, and eliminate inconsistencies among various federal programs. The 1970s saw increased activity for the EEOC, and by 1977, the agency had a backlog of 94,700 unresolved cases.

 

The Supreme Court’s Griggs decision, which recognized the indirect impact of discrimination, helped the agency expand its influence. In 1973, the EEOC established task forces to investigate General Electric, General Motors, Ford, and Sears Roebuck. Under Title VII, “commissioner charges” were filed against these employers, and gained settlements for entire classes of victims of discrimination. This was followed by suits filed against nine of the nation’s largest steel producers in 1974, and other major actions against airlines, railroads, and construction and utility companies throughout the rest of the decade.

 

President Jimmy Carter expanded the power of the EEOC to enforce its rules, which required more changes to the agency. In 1978, Carter signed the Reorganization Plan No. 1 and Executive Order 12067 to consolidate and strengthen the enforcement of all federal equal employment requirements. The EEOC also issued the Uniform Guidelines in connection with the Departments of Labor and Justice, the Office of Revenue Sharing, and the Civil Service Commission. These established the same standards for evaluating selection procedures used in hiring and promoting employees for all employers—private sector employers, federal contractors and grantees, and federal, state, and local governments.

 

The rest of the 1980s saw the EEOC changing and reassessing its role in the country. It had recently received enforcement authority over the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and civil rights laws applicable to civilian federal employees. It also shifted its focus to the areas of age discrimination, sexual harassment, and national origin bias.

 

In the 1990s, Congress again expanded the EEOC’s authority, thanks to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Although the commission received little additional funding, it attempted to develop creative enforcement strategies to reduce the backlog of unresolved cases.

 

On February 6, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13145, prohibiting discrimination in federal employment based on protected genetic information.

 

Since 2001, the EEOC staff continued to shrink; as of 2006, it had lost almost 20% of its workforce. The agency was unable to fill vacant jobs because, that year, the George W. Bush administration enacted a partial budget freeze which it blamed on the necessity of re-directing additional funds to homeland security and defense budgets. In June, labor unions and civil rights advocates complained that the staff cuts, along with outsourcing of complaint investigations to an unqualified private contractor, were undermining the agency’s effectiveness. EOCC was said to have suffered a loss of $4.9 million as a result of outsourcing to Kansas-based Pearson Government Solutions. Continued staff cuts saw EEOC’s personnel reduced, in 2008, to 25% of its 2000 level. With the loss of many of its attorneys and case screeners, the agency’s backlog of complaints grew by 26% in a two-year time period.

 

In 2008, President Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, and in March 2011, the EEOC released its final rule implementing the statute.

In January 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which amended the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. That law nullified the 2007 Supreme Court decision that had restricted the ability of victims of discrimination to recover back pay from their employers. Additionally, Obama’s signing of the omnibus spending bill in December of that year restored funding of the EEOC to pre-Bush administration levels.

 

EEOC History: 1965-2000 (EEOC)

The Top 5 Most Intriguing Decisions In EEOC Cases Of 2010 (by  Christopher J. DeGroff and Brandon L. Spurlock, The Workplace Class Action Blog, Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

more
What it Does:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)  is charged with enforcing laws prohibiting job discrimination. Laws covered by the EEOC include: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC enforces these laws and others and provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

 

It also provides information on how to file a complaint regarding employment discrimination, and it compiles statistics on discrimination complaints and litigation. 

 

The EEOC has five commissioners and a general counsel appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners are appointed for five-year, staggered terms. The President designates a chair and a vice chair. The chair is the chief executive officer of the commission. Commissioners make equal employment opportunity policy and approve most litigation.

 

Litigation, the EEOC’s most important enforcement function, is carried out by the general counsel, who serves four years.

 

The EEOC has several initiatives it is currently undertaking. The E-RACE Initiative seeks to eradicate racism and “colorism” from employment. The Freedom to Compete Initiative is designed to form partnerships, liaisons, and alliances to educate the country’s workforce, deter potential discrimination and promote compliance and sound employment practices. The LEAD Initiative (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities) is attempting to address the declining number of employees with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce. The New Freedom Initiative is supposed to promote the integration of people with disabilities into all aspects of American life. The Youth@Work Initiative seeks to promote equal employment opportunity for young workers.

more
Where Does the Money Go:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)  has spent $479.4 million in nearly 23,000 transactions this decade. According to USASpending.gov, the commission paid for a variety of services that included legal ($305.9 million), administrative ($16.5 million), and ADP software ($14.9 million).

 

The top five contractors were: 

 

  • State of California                                           $25,361,880
  • State of Ohio                                                   $19,979,021
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania                    $15,309,880
  • State of Illinois                                                $14,873,366
  • Computer Sciences Corporation                     $14,145,149

 

EEOC FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification

 

 

From the Web Site of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Budget and Performance Reports

Contact Information

Employees and Job Applicants

Employers

Enforcement and Litigation

FAQs

Federal Sector

Initiatives

Jobs and Internships

Meetings

Newsroom

Office List and Map

Publications

Statistics

Topics Archive

more
Controversies:

Birth Control Mandate Was Already Law, Per EEOC

Lost amid the political shouting began in 2011 after President Barack Obama announced most employers must cover birth control in their health insurance plans was the fact that the requirement had been law for more than a decade.

 

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided businesses that provided prescription drugs to their employees had to also provide birth control coverage. This policy decision stood intact all throughout the Bush administration, which did not challenge the EEOC’s ruling that offered no exemption for religious employers.

 

“It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles,” a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. “All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It’s a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial.”

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years (by Nick Baumann, Mother Jones)

 

 

 

EEOC Office Move Creates Conflict with Employees

In May 2007, the EEOC came into conflict with its employees when it moved its headquarters from downtown Washington D.C. to a rougher transitional neighborhood known as NoMa. The move was part of general cost-cutting measures the agency had been making in order to reduce a backlog of unresolved cases. Many employees described the situation among workers as mutinous, due to the relocation to a high crime neighborhood filled with dance clubs and warehouses.

EEOC Headquarters Move Stirs Revolt Among Staff (by Bill Leonard, Society for Human Resource Management)

more

Comments

Jaamal Wiley 1 year ago
Jaamal Wiley Vs Texas health and Human Service commission. EEOC Charge No: 450-2015-03700 682-221-5776 On June 29th, I met with my program manager primary to discuss and talk about some concerns, which she also allowed me to help her understand what was going on with me due to some days missed,when I began to discuss the hostile work environment that racists comments were being made at me from another employee,and then adress with her my disability,my program manager stated she wasn't aware of,but did recognized that I had a conversation with my direct supervisor Stacy Martin prior to our conversation that's noted in an email format,in requards to the harassment, my email clearly was addressing the fact of the unwelcome comments and the conduct based on my race from another employee. When there was another meeting with myself,Stacy Martin, Cassandra and my program assistant. My peer Cassandra stated the the other employee who was an clerk,was only playing with me. At that point, I notice the timing of trying to hide the hostile work environment which violates the law. The conversations took place during the time, I adress my serve major depression with my program manager, when I advised her that it played a major reason for me missing days due to the hostile work environment. That she was concerned about,I then to was able to move forward to training starting on 07-15-2015. I turely know that the comments did interfere with my performance and also created an intimidating, hostile,and offensive work environment. After speaking with Jill Santos on today (01-06-16) I have been made aware that my civil rights investigator Donnie Price and the Director of Opperation has retired in the middle of my investigation. Never the less I am hopping everyone involved will see and understand the importance of the retaliation of my Disability and how such offensive behavior could affect my Disability at work. An month later,my supervisor gave me a reasonable accommodation form on 07-28-2015 to have completed. When me and my doctor completed the form, I turned it into my supervisor directly,and that's when program manger created a  hostile work environment making offensive remarks about the reasonable accommodation from. Please forward this e-mail to all whom need to be aware. This type of behavior has to stop at some point. I have became an victim of people abusing their power in management, and violation of the law. I really would like to address, the offensive and intimidated behavior during the time, I Jaamal Wiley,met with my program manager on 07-30-2015 when I  turned in a reasonable accommodation form that was given to me by my immediate supervisor at work, my program manager  performance has caused me to suffer in extreme case, and I surly believe it became an hostile work environment and a tense atmosphere of anger and resentment on 07-30-2015.  When my program manager stated offensively that job restructuring wasn't going to happen,and that she felt that, I Jaamal Wiley may not be suitable for the position without any attempts to allow the company to try and accommodate me after reviewing my medical response that was written by my attending physicians,when I was seen on 07-30-2015 at Jhon Peter Smith behavior health clinic. These types of behaviors should never be allowed in a workplace. I truly know that I have been wrongfully terminated on 08-10-2015. Due to the acknowledge of my mental impairments and learning disability the employer has terminated me for know other reason other than a motive, which is prohibited by law. At this point the reactions from my program manager is clearly an act base on my disability, and the termination violates the discrimination laws and therefore my termination is legally wrongful. I was even advised by an Hr  employee relations rep Mr young that oversees employees in my district to go and apply for unemployment and put some pocket change in my pocket and move on, which was an offensive remark as well. I believe that the law requires my employer to provide Me an reasonable accommodation who may have some disability, unless doing so would cause a significant difficulty or expense for my employer HHSC. Which myself and a attending physician filled out the form together and I presented to my supervisor Stacy Martin who called my program manager into the office and I asked if I could have the form submitted to civil rights for review and my program manager said that she would send it to the civil rights department for review,after making the offensive remarks. I'm also aware that a reasonable accommodation is any change in my work environment or in the way things are usually done to help a person with a disability such as myself, who also suffer from a learning disability, which when I applied for a job or postion, The Hr personnel  accommodate me and allowed me to use an calculator to use during my hiring exam, in order to see if I would be able to perform the duties of my job, and at that point I did well and was able to move forward in the hiring process and later offer and position via email to report to the 2220 mall circle location on June 01,2015, which the reasonable accommodation during the hiring process did allow me to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment with HHSC. I have sent in all documents that shows that management was aware of my disability early on in my employment and there was know talks of termination until the reasonable accommodation form was reviewed by my program manager in front of me and my immediate supervisor Stacy Martin on 07-30-2015. My request would not have caused a undue hardship which means that the accommodation would not have been too difficult or too expensive to provide, in light of HHSC size, and financial resources, and the needs of  business. My employer should have  not refuse to provide me a reasonable accommodation. Due to the mistreatment, retaliation and discrimination of my disability has left me homelessness through all the holidays and has been a strain on me mentally. My immediate supervisor Stacy Martin during the time she provided me with the form,she stated that they (meaning management) believed that I may be covered under the ADA law and that it was impaired that I turned the form in as soon as possible. On the form My Doctor and I asked my employer for a reasonable accommodation such as adjustment to my job or work environment and to allow more time in my training due to my learning disability, therefore it could allow me to perform the essential functions of my job, and also would allow me be able to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment equal to those enjoyed by employees without any disabilities.  Instead my program manager had already verbally made an decision and offensive remarks on 07-30-2015,during the time she received my reasonable accommodation form. Please ensure that know other employee will ever suffer from retaliation and discrimination such as I have. Mr Kenneth was a volunteer who reported to my program manager on my behalf and his number is 682-701-1193. These two are witnesses to the hostile work environment. Email sent to civil rights investigator,who interviewed the withness. Thank you for interviewing the withness Mr Kenneth this morning by phone,who observed the hostile work behavior in the workplace,that he to did state to you he reported it to my program manager, and for ensuring me that your investigation is done under your jurisdiction by making sure every consideration within the law be given to a constituent’s concern. By investigating all the discrimination violations the hhsc department has done to me on hand, from rascal comments,refusal of disability accommodation, and offensive remarks from management. which I am confident that my withness has helped you close any gaps.
Carl Robertson 3 years ago
What authority does EEOC Atlanta Investigators have in generating (forging) an individual's name onto an EEOC Form 5 under the penalty of perjury, and then false altering that document affirming that the named individual consented to, agreed with, and authorized the newly added information when that individual (charging party) had not? Why after receiving several complaints concerning the matter, has the EEOC Hierarchy refuse to investigate this type of criminal activity? Are EEOC employees immune from criminal investigations, but other public employees working for the Federal Government are not? What purpose would EEOC Investigators have in taking such actions, but for the benefit of the named company/employer complained against? Is this type action now the policy of EEOC? What person will commit an unnecessary criminal act on behalf of another, and not receive some form of compensation for committing that act?
Darryl D. Perry 3 years ago
I would like to know who has direct oversight over the EEOC Honolulu Office; its director and agents?
J Smith 6 years ago
i am interested in knoing if any of the issues in this article have been resolved? i received a certified letter today regarding my case and the news i got today has me confused, lost and sad. after reading this article, it confirms my feelings and thought that due to all the issues regarding manpower, budget etc, and their effects on the eeoc just trickle down to the people out here with issues that are not getting satifsfactory service; much less above average. i know if i had som...

Leave a comment

Founded: 1964
Annual Budget: $373.7 million (FY 2013 Request)
Employees: 2,354 (FY 2013 Estimate)
Official Website: http://www.eeoc.gov/
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Lipnic, Victoria
Acting Chair

Victoria Lipnic, a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who had been widely seen as a possible secretary of labor in the Donald Trump administration, instead settled for being named acting chairman of the EEOC on January 25, 2017. The EEOC is responsible for eliminating all forms of discrimination in the workplace.

 

Lipnic is from Carrolltown, Pennsylvania, where her father Ed, a teacher, also served as mayor. She attended Cambria Heights High School and went on to Allegheny College, where she earned a B.A. in political science and history in 1982.

 

Lipnic found a job in the Reagan-era Commerce Department under then-Secretary Malcolm Baldridge, ending her stint there as special assistant to the assistant secretary for trade development and the International Trade Administration.

 

She then went to law school at George Mason, earning her J.D. in 1991. Lipnic worked for a time as an attorney in private practice before landing a spot in 1994 with the U.S. Postal Service as their in-house counsel for employment matters. After six years there, she moved to Congress as the workforce policy counsel to the House Education and Labor Committee.

 

Lipnic joined the George W. Bush administration’s Department of Labor as assistant secretary for employment standards. In that position, Lipnic backed employers’ calls to weaken the Family and Medical Leave Act and pushed through a change in overtime policy that allowed employers to exempt more of their workers from earning overtime pay.

 

After the Bush administration left office, Lipnic worked briefly at the Seyforth Shaw law firm before being appointed to the EEOC by President Barack Obama in 2010. She was reappointed in 2015. While a member of the commission, Lipnic dissented in a decision that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sexual discrimination and a violation of Title VII. She also voted against a proposal requiring employers to submit detailed pay data by gender, race and ethnicity as a way of curbing pay discrimination. 

 

Speaking at the offices of her former employer, Seyfarth Shaw, on February 9, 2017, in her first speech as acting chair, Lipnic announced that she hoped the EEOC would increase its focus on age discrimination and equal pay issues and on job creation. She also expressed her intention of having EEOC commissioners vote on more complaints before they are filed in federal court, rather than having general counsel make the decisions. The EEOC currently has a Democratic majority, but that will probably be reversed in July.

-Steve Straehley

 

To Learn More:

Under Trump, EEOC Will Focus on Job Growth (by Kate McGovern Tornone, HR Daily Advisor)

Official Biography

What Trump’s Secretary of Labor Could Do (by Alexia Fernández Campbell, The Atlantic)

more
Yang, Jenny
Previous Chair

Jenny R. Yang is a commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with a term ending July 1, 2017. She served as chair of the Commission—the first Asian-American to do so—from September 1, 2014, to January 22, 2017, after a four-month stint as vice-chair beginning in April 2014. She began her term as a commissioner in May 2013. EEOC, whose mission is to fight all forms of discrimination in the workplace, has more than 2,200 employees and an annual budget of more than $365 million.

 

Born circa 1970, Jenny Rae Yang grew up in Livingston, New Jersey, the child of Chinese immigrants Sue Pai Yang, an attorney who became a judge, and Dr. Chung Shu Yang, a professor of pharmacy. The second of two daughters (her sister, Arlene Yang, is an attorney in San Diego), Yang says that she was inspired by her mother, who challenged discrimination at her workplace. She earned a B.A. in Government at Cornell University in 1973 and a J.D. at New York University School of Law in 1996. 

 

After law school, Yang served as law clerk for Judge Edmund Ludwig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1996 to 1997, and as an attorney for the National Employment Law Project in Washington, DC, from 1997 to 1998, where she focused on efforts to enforce the workplace rights of garment workers.

 

Yang started her government service as a senior trial attorney in the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice from 1998 to 2003.

 

Yang went into private practice in early 2003 as an associate at the law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, rising to partner before leaving in May 2013. At Cohen Milstein, Yang represented plaintiffs, mainly workers, in civil rights class actions and wage and hour collective actions. Her prominent cases included Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the largest sex-discrimination class-action suit in history, in which she represented a class of 1.6 million women against Wal-Mart. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed on technical grounds.

 

From 2007 until her confirmation to the EEOC in 2013, Yang served as a board member and vice-chair of the Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center. From 1998 to 2004, she served as co-chair and board member of the National Governing Board of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum.

 

Yang and her husband, Kil Huh, director of the States’ Fiscal Health Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts, have two sons.

-Matt Bewig

 

To Learn More:

Official Biography

Portrait of a Happy Marriage: Almost 50 years and Growing Strong (by MaryLynn Schiavi, MyCentralJersey) 

more
Bookmark and Share
Overview:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for eliminating all forms of discrimination in the workplace. Through development and passage of legislation, and its enforcement arm, the agency seeks to reverse the trend of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and retaliation, as well as age, gender, sexuality, genetics, and physical ability. While its mission is designed to help make the American workplace free of trouble, EEOC’s own operations have sometimes suffered from problems. Recently, the commission moved its Washington D.C., office into a “transitional” neighborhood, much to the dismay of its employees, and it opened a national call center that had union and Democratic members of Congress quite upset.

more
History:

In the early 1960s, there was growing unrest in the country about racial discrimination and segregation, which came to light as a result of the Civil Rights Movement. In the spring of 1963, demonstrators were attacked with dogs, sprayed with water hoses and arrested or jailed. On June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation, and eight days later, he sent new legislation to Congress. Opposition was fierce, but in August, 250,000 Americans marched in Washington D.C., and Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

 

In November, President Kennedy was assassinated, leaving the outcome of the civil rights legislation in doubt. But his successor, Lyndon Johnson, a veteran of Capitol Hill, took up the charge and utilized his well-honed legislative skills to push Congress into finishing what Kennedy had started.

 

On July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. Among its goals was the elimination of discrimination in the workplace through the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became the most famous aspect of the new legislation, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, and retaliation.

 

The newly created five-member bipartisan commission in charge of the EEOC was given the power to receive, investigate, and conciliate complaints. Only individuals could bring lawsuits, which the EEOC could then refer to the Department of Justice for litigation.

 

In 1971, Congress conducted public hearings on proposed amendments to Title VII. It concluded that despite its best efforts, the EEOC had failed to stem discrimination. So Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which gave the EEOC litigation enforcement authority. This allowed it to use dispute resolution between workers and employers, such as mediation.

 

The bill also expanded the EEOC’s jurisdiction. It could now sue nongovernmental employers, unions and agencies, file pattern or practice lawsuits, and eliminate inconsistencies among various federal programs. The 1970s saw increased activity for the EEOC, and by 1977, the agency had a backlog of 94,700 unresolved cases.

 

The Supreme Court’s Griggs decision, which recognized the indirect impact of discrimination, helped the agency expand its influence. In 1973, the EEOC established task forces to investigate General Electric, General Motors, Ford, and Sears Roebuck. Under Title VII, “commissioner charges” were filed against these employers, and gained settlements for entire classes of victims of discrimination. This was followed by suits filed against nine of the nation’s largest steel producers in 1974, and other major actions against airlines, railroads, and construction and utility companies throughout the rest of the decade.

 

President Jimmy Carter expanded the power of the EEOC to enforce its rules, which required more changes to the agency. In 1978, Carter signed the Reorganization Plan No. 1 and Executive Order 12067 to consolidate and strengthen the enforcement of all federal equal employment requirements. The EEOC also issued the Uniform Guidelines in connection with the Departments of Labor and Justice, the Office of Revenue Sharing, and the Civil Service Commission. These established the same standards for evaluating selection procedures used in hiring and promoting employees for all employers—private sector employers, federal contractors and grantees, and federal, state, and local governments.

 

The rest of the 1980s saw the EEOC changing and reassessing its role in the country. It had recently received enforcement authority over the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and civil rights laws applicable to civilian federal employees. It also shifted its focus to the areas of age discrimination, sexual harassment, and national origin bias.

 

In the 1990s, Congress again expanded the EEOC’s authority, thanks to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Although the commission received little additional funding, it attempted to develop creative enforcement strategies to reduce the backlog of unresolved cases.

 

On February 6, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13145, prohibiting discrimination in federal employment based on protected genetic information.

 

Since 2001, the EEOC staff continued to shrink; as of 2006, it had lost almost 20% of its workforce. The agency was unable to fill vacant jobs because, that year, the George W. Bush administration enacted a partial budget freeze which it blamed on the necessity of re-directing additional funds to homeland security and defense budgets. In June, labor unions and civil rights advocates complained that the staff cuts, along with outsourcing of complaint investigations to an unqualified private contractor, were undermining the agency’s effectiveness. EOCC was said to have suffered a loss of $4.9 million as a result of outsourcing to Kansas-based Pearson Government Solutions. Continued staff cuts saw EEOC’s personnel reduced, in 2008, to 25% of its 2000 level. With the loss of many of its attorneys and case screeners, the agency’s backlog of complaints grew by 26% in a two-year time period.

 

In 2008, President Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, and in March 2011, the EEOC released its final rule implementing the statute.

In January 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which amended the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. That law nullified the 2007 Supreme Court decision that had restricted the ability of victims of discrimination to recover back pay from their employers. Additionally, Obama’s signing of the omnibus spending bill in December of that year restored funding of the EEOC to pre-Bush administration levels.

 

EEOC History: 1965-2000 (EEOC)

The Top 5 Most Intriguing Decisions In EEOC Cases Of 2010 (by  Christopher J. DeGroff and Brandon L. Spurlock, The Workplace Class Action Blog, Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

more
What it Does:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)  is charged with enforcing laws prohibiting job discrimination. Laws covered by the EEOC include: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC enforces these laws and others and provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

 

It also provides information on how to file a complaint regarding employment discrimination, and it compiles statistics on discrimination complaints and litigation. 

 

The EEOC has five commissioners and a general counsel appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners are appointed for five-year, staggered terms. The President designates a chair and a vice chair. The chair is the chief executive officer of the commission. Commissioners make equal employment opportunity policy and approve most litigation.

 

Litigation, the EEOC’s most important enforcement function, is carried out by the general counsel, who serves four years.

 

The EEOC has several initiatives it is currently undertaking. The E-RACE Initiative seeks to eradicate racism and “colorism” from employment. The Freedom to Compete Initiative is designed to form partnerships, liaisons, and alliances to educate the country’s workforce, deter potential discrimination and promote compliance and sound employment practices. The LEAD Initiative (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities) is attempting to address the declining number of employees with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce. The New Freedom Initiative is supposed to promote the integration of people with disabilities into all aspects of American life. The Youth@Work Initiative seeks to promote equal employment opportunity for young workers.

more
Where Does the Money Go:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)  has spent $479.4 million in nearly 23,000 transactions this decade. According to USASpending.gov, the commission paid for a variety of services that included legal ($305.9 million), administrative ($16.5 million), and ADP software ($14.9 million).

 

The top five contractors were: 

 

  • State of California                                           $25,361,880
  • State of Ohio                                                   $19,979,021
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania                    $15,309,880
  • State of Illinois                                                $14,873,366
  • Computer Sciences Corporation                     $14,145,149

 

EEOC FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification

 

 

From the Web Site of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Budget and Performance Reports

Contact Information

Employees and Job Applicants

Employers

Enforcement and Litigation

FAQs

Federal Sector

Initiatives

Jobs and Internships

Meetings

Newsroom

Office List and Map

Publications

Statistics

Topics Archive

more
Controversies:

Birth Control Mandate Was Already Law, Per EEOC

Lost amid the political shouting began in 2011 after President Barack Obama announced most employers must cover birth control in their health insurance plans was the fact that the requirement had been law for more than a decade.

 

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided businesses that provided prescription drugs to their employees had to also provide birth control coverage. This policy decision stood intact all throughout the Bush administration, which did not challenge the EEOC’s ruling that offered no exemption for religious employers.

 

“It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles,” a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. “All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It’s a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial.”

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years (by Nick Baumann, Mother Jones)

 

 

 

EEOC Office Move Creates Conflict with Employees

In May 2007, the EEOC came into conflict with its employees when it moved its headquarters from downtown Washington D.C. to a rougher transitional neighborhood known as NoMa. The move was part of general cost-cutting measures the agency had been making in order to reduce a backlog of unresolved cases. Many employees described the situation among workers as mutinous, due to the relocation to a high crime neighborhood filled with dance clubs and warehouses.

EEOC Headquarters Move Stirs Revolt Among Staff (by Bill Leonard, Society for Human Resource Management)

more

Comments

Jaamal Wiley 1 year ago
Jaamal Wiley Vs Texas health and Human Service commission. EEOC Charge No: 450-2015-03700 682-221-5776 On June 29th, I met with my program manager primary to discuss and talk about some concerns, which she also allowed me to help her understand what was going on with me due to some days missed,when I began to discuss the hostile work environment that racists comments were being made at me from another employee,and then adress with her my disability,my program manager stated she wasn't aware of,but did recognized that I had a conversation with my direct supervisor Stacy Martin prior to our conversation that's noted in an email format,in requards to the harassment, my email clearly was addressing the fact of the unwelcome comments and the conduct based on my race from another employee. When there was another meeting with myself,Stacy Martin, Cassandra and my program assistant. My peer Cassandra stated the the other employee who was an clerk,was only playing with me. At that point, I notice the timing of trying to hide the hostile work environment which violates the law. The conversations took place during the time, I adress my serve major depression with my program manager, when I advised her that it played a major reason for me missing days due to the hostile work environment. That she was concerned about,I then to was able to move forward to training starting on 07-15-2015. I turely know that the comments did interfere with my performance and also created an intimidating, hostile,and offensive work environment. After speaking with Jill Santos on today (01-06-16) I have been made aware that my civil rights investigator Donnie Price and the Director of Opperation has retired in the middle of my investigation. Never the less I am hopping everyone involved will see and understand the importance of the retaliation of my Disability and how such offensive behavior could affect my Disability at work. An month later,my supervisor gave me a reasonable accommodation form on 07-28-2015 to have completed. When me and my doctor completed the form, I turned it into my supervisor directly,and that's when program manger created a  hostile work environment making offensive remarks about the reasonable accommodation from. Please forward this e-mail to all whom need to be aware. This type of behavior has to stop at some point. I have became an victim of people abusing their power in management, and violation of the law. I really would like to address, the offensive and intimidated behavior during the time, I Jaamal Wiley,met with my program manager on 07-30-2015 when I  turned in a reasonable accommodation form that was given to me by my immediate supervisor at work, my program manager  performance has caused me to suffer in extreme case, and I surly believe it became an hostile work environment and a tense atmosphere of anger and resentment on 07-30-2015.  When my program manager stated offensively that job restructuring wasn't going to happen,and that she felt that, I Jaamal Wiley may not be suitable for the position without any attempts to allow the company to try and accommodate me after reviewing my medical response that was written by my attending physicians,when I was seen on 07-30-2015 at Jhon Peter Smith behavior health clinic. These types of behaviors should never be allowed in a workplace. I truly know that I have been wrongfully terminated on 08-10-2015. Due to the acknowledge of my mental impairments and learning disability the employer has terminated me for know other reason other than a motive, which is prohibited by law. At this point the reactions from my program manager is clearly an act base on my disability, and the termination violates the discrimination laws and therefore my termination is legally wrongful. I was even advised by an Hr  employee relations rep Mr young that oversees employees in my district to go and apply for unemployment and put some pocket change in my pocket and move on, which was an offensive remark as well. I believe that the law requires my employer to provide Me an reasonable accommodation who may have some disability, unless doing so would cause a significant difficulty or expense for my employer HHSC. Which myself and a attending physician filled out the form together and I presented to my supervisor Stacy Martin who called my program manager into the office and I asked if I could have the form submitted to civil rights for review and my program manager said that she would send it to the civil rights department for review,after making the offensive remarks. I'm also aware that a reasonable accommodation is any change in my work environment or in the way things are usually done to help a person with a disability such as myself, who also suffer from a learning disability, which when I applied for a job or postion, The Hr personnel  accommodate me and allowed me to use an calculator to use during my hiring exam, in order to see if I would be able to perform the duties of my job, and at that point I did well and was able to move forward in the hiring process and later offer and position via email to report to the 2220 mall circle location on June 01,2015, which the reasonable accommodation during the hiring process did allow me to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment with HHSC. I have sent in all documents that shows that management was aware of my disability early on in my employment and there was know talks of termination until the reasonable accommodation form was reviewed by my program manager in front of me and my immediate supervisor Stacy Martin on 07-30-2015. My request would not have caused a undue hardship which means that the accommodation would not have been too difficult or too expensive to provide, in light of HHSC size, and financial resources, and the needs of  business. My employer should have  not refuse to provide me a reasonable accommodation. Due to the mistreatment, retaliation and discrimination of my disability has left me homelessness through all the holidays and has been a strain on me mentally. My immediate supervisor Stacy Martin during the time she provided me with the form,she stated that they (meaning management) believed that I may be covered under the ADA law and that it was impaired that I turned the form in as soon as possible. On the form My Doctor and I asked my employer for a reasonable accommodation such as adjustment to my job or work environment and to allow more time in my training due to my learning disability, therefore it could allow me to perform the essential functions of my job, and also would allow me be able to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment equal to those enjoyed by employees without any disabilities.  Instead my program manager had already verbally made an decision and offensive remarks on 07-30-2015,during the time she received my reasonable accommodation form. Please ensure that know other employee will ever suffer from retaliation and discrimination such as I have. Mr Kenneth was a volunteer who reported to my program manager on my behalf and his number is 682-701-1193. These two are witnesses to the hostile work environment. Email sent to civil rights investigator,who interviewed the withness. Thank you for interviewing the withness Mr Kenneth this morning by phone,who observed the hostile work behavior in the workplace,that he to did state to you he reported it to my program manager, and for ensuring me that your investigation is done under your jurisdiction by making sure every consideration within the law be given to a constituent’s concern. By investigating all the discrimination violations the hhsc department has done to me on hand, from rascal comments,refusal of disability accommodation, and offensive remarks from management. which I am confident that my withness has helped you close any gaps.
Carl Robertson 3 years ago
What authority does EEOC Atlanta Investigators have in generating (forging) an individual's name onto an EEOC Form 5 under the penalty of perjury, and then false altering that document affirming that the named individual consented to, agreed with, and authorized the newly added information when that individual (charging party) had not? Why after receiving several complaints concerning the matter, has the EEOC Hierarchy refuse to investigate this type of criminal activity? Are EEOC employees immune from criminal investigations, but other public employees working for the Federal Government are not? What purpose would EEOC Investigators have in taking such actions, but for the benefit of the named company/employer complained against? Is this type action now the policy of EEOC? What person will commit an unnecessary criminal act on behalf of another, and not receive some form of compensation for committing that act?
Darryl D. Perry 3 years ago
I would like to know who has direct oversight over the EEOC Honolulu Office; its director and agents?
J Smith 6 years ago
i am interested in knoing if any of the issues in this article have been resolved? i received a certified letter today regarding my case and the news i got today has me confused, lost and sad. after reading this article, it confirms my feelings and thought that due to all the issues regarding manpower, budget etc, and their effects on the eeoc just trickle down to the people out here with issues that are not getting satifsfactory service; much less above average. i know if i had som...

Leave a comment

Founded: 1964
Annual Budget: $373.7 million (FY 2013 Request)
Employees: 2,354 (FY 2013 Estimate)
Official Website: http://www.eeoc.gov/
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Lipnic, Victoria
Acting Chair

Victoria Lipnic, a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who had been widely seen as a possible secretary of labor in the Donald Trump administration, instead settled for being named acting chairman of the EEOC on January 25, 2017. The EEOC is responsible for eliminating all forms of discrimination in the workplace.

 

Lipnic is from Carrolltown, Pennsylvania, where her father Ed, a teacher, also served as mayor. She attended Cambria Heights High School and went on to Allegheny College, where she earned a B.A. in political science and history in 1982.

 

Lipnic found a job in the Reagan-era Commerce Department under then-Secretary Malcolm Baldridge, ending her stint there as special assistant to the assistant secretary for trade development and the International Trade Administration.

 

She then went to law school at George Mason, earning her J.D. in 1991. Lipnic worked for a time as an attorney in private practice before landing a spot in 1994 with the U.S. Postal Service as their in-house counsel for employment matters. After six years there, she moved to Congress as the workforce policy counsel to the House Education and Labor Committee.

 

Lipnic joined the George W. Bush administration’s Department of Labor as assistant secretary for employment standards. In that position, Lipnic backed employers’ calls to weaken the Family and Medical Leave Act and pushed through a change in overtime policy that allowed employers to exempt more of their workers from earning overtime pay.

 

After the Bush administration left office, Lipnic worked briefly at the Seyforth Shaw law firm before being appointed to the EEOC by President Barack Obama in 2010. She was reappointed in 2015. While a member of the commission, Lipnic dissented in a decision that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sexual discrimination and a violation of Title VII. She also voted against a proposal requiring employers to submit detailed pay data by gender, race and ethnicity as a way of curbing pay discrimination. 

 

Speaking at the offices of her former employer, Seyfarth Shaw, on February 9, 2017, in her first speech as acting chair, Lipnic announced that she hoped the EEOC would increase its focus on age discrimination and equal pay issues and on job creation. She also expressed her intention of having EEOC commissioners vote on more complaints before they are filed in federal court, rather than having general counsel make the decisions. The EEOC currently has a Democratic majority, but that will probably be reversed in July.

-Steve Straehley

 

To Learn More:

Under Trump, EEOC Will Focus on Job Growth (by Kate McGovern Tornone, HR Daily Advisor)

Official Biography

What Trump’s Secretary of Labor Could Do (by Alexia Fernández Campbell, The Atlantic)

more
Yang, Jenny
Previous Chair

Jenny R. Yang is a commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with a term ending July 1, 2017. She served as chair of the Commission—the first Asian-American to do so—from September 1, 2014, to January 22, 2017, after a four-month stint as vice-chair beginning in April 2014. She began her term as a commissioner in May 2013. EEOC, whose mission is to fight all forms of discrimination in the workplace, has more than 2,200 employees and an annual budget of more than $365 million.

 

Born circa 1970, Jenny Rae Yang grew up in Livingston, New Jersey, the child of Chinese immigrants Sue Pai Yang, an attorney who became a judge, and Dr. Chung Shu Yang, a professor of pharmacy. The second of two daughters (her sister, Arlene Yang, is an attorney in San Diego), Yang says that she was inspired by her mother, who challenged discrimination at her workplace. She earned a B.A. in Government at Cornell University in 1973 and a J.D. at New York University School of Law in 1996. 

 

After law school, Yang served as law clerk for Judge Edmund Ludwig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1996 to 1997, and as an attorney for the National Employment Law Project in Washington, DC, from 1997 to 1998, where she focused on efforts to enforce the workplace rights of garment workers.

 

Yang started her government service as a senior trial attorney in the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice from 1998 to 2003.

 

Yang went into private practice in early 2003 as an associate at the law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, rising to partner before leaving in May 2013. At Cohen Milstein, Yang represented plaintiffs, mainly workers, in civil rights class actions and wage and hour collective actions. Her prominent cases included Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the largest sex-discrimination class-action suit in history, in which she represented a class of 1.6 million women against Wal-Mart. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed on technical grounds.

 

From 2007 until her confirmation to the EEOC in 2013, Yang served as a board member and vice-chair of the Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center. From 1998 to 2004, she served as co-chair and board member of the National Governing Board of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum.

 

Yang and her husband, Kil Huh, director of the States’ Fiscal Health Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts, have two sons.

-Matt Bewig

 

To Learn More:

Official Biography

Portrait of a Happy Marriage: Almost 50 years and Growing Strong (by MaryLynn Schiavi, MyCentralJersey) 

more