EEOC needs to Go!!!

[COINTELPRO]

Here are my observations from going through process - The Civil Rights Act is another 40 acres and a mule promise by the government:

1. Although the courts have stated the EEOC is an administrative process that should be exhausted before filing suit, this agency as part of the executive branch acts in a judicial capacity by making determinations of your complaint (reasonable cause/no reasonable cause) without being party to the lawsuit. This is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the three branch of the government and equal protection clause.

2. No other federal civil lawsuit where one party is injured by another one and that person wants to seek relief in court has to expend significant legal resources going through an poor bureaucratic process. Why is our civil rights treated as second-class by the legal system?

3. A finding of no reasonable cause by the EEOC can be presented to a judge or jury. This fact can mislead jurors/judge into thinking your case has no merits since an authoritative federal agency with inadequate resources to investigate said so.

4. The courts depend on this "weeding out" process of legitimate and the few frivolous complaints. If the EEOC did not exist than the federal court system would be forced to allocate adequate resources to deal with these cases. A civil rights court should be created to deal with these violations.

5. Since civil rights law is inadequately enforced, the corporate community knows they can act with impunity and violate our civil rights. It is similar to what would happen if speed limits were not enforced. More people will speed knowing they will not get caught or pay a fine. The end result is more accidents and in the case of our civil rights more violations. A couple of big jury awards will force companies to hire, promote, retain minorities/women because they would have to deal with real civil rights enforcement.

6. The EEOC as part of the DOJ should act in the capacity of an Attorney General by filing civil rights cases on behalf of the government and retain its current role with federal agency complaints. The EEOC should not get involved in civil rights lawsuit between two private parties unless requested. Only a judge and jury should be determining the merits of your case.

7. You will need as much evidence as possible because the EEOC only finds reasonable cause six percent of the time when investigating all forms of discrimination (age, sex, race, disability). Race discrimination is even lower with four percent.

8. The EEOC only obtained 67 subpoenas out of 75,248 complaints (.08%) which is a poor way to investiage. I doubt companies are voluntarily turning over evidence the other 99.92 percent of the time. Furthermore, don't be fooled into thinking the EEOC has special investigative powers to have companies turn over evidence. They do the same thing your lawyer does if in court - petition the judge.

9. You lawyer should pursue a right to sue letter in federal court from the EEOC after 180 days before a likely unfavorable determination (a right to sue letter before a determination administratively closes your case). By looking at the stats for number of administratively closed cases, lawyers are requesting this letter infrequently before an unfavorable determination.

10. The EEOC only takes a tiny amount of complaints to court (<1%) so don't expect them to represent your case in court.

It appears the EEOC and the State Civil Rights Commission are design to drain you financially with legal bills, frustrate you when they find no discrimination all the time, and keep you from getting relief in court.

http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/race.html
http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/all.html
http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/litigation.html

 

[VegasGuy]

All of that shit thats' been around since the civil rights act should be revisited and updated bad as hell. But to say revisit Affirmative Action statues and such suggests you want to get rid of it. I am not saying we are ready to get rid of it but like anything the government does, after a while holes get punched in it, weaking the statues that supposed to protect people.

-VG

 

[COINTELPRO]

All of that shit thats' been around since the civil rights act should be revisited and updated bad as hell. But to say revisit Affirmative Action statues and such suggests you want to get rid of it. I am not saying we are ready to get rid of it but like anything the government does, after a while holes get punched in it, weaking the statues that supposed to protect people.

-VG

I agree, if they are not going to enforce the law than get rid of it. Give me the 600 million the EEOC gets a year in funding.

If you are going the EEOC with your employer tell your lawyer that you want a right to sue letter in federal court and to not pursue your case with the EEOC. Unless they are class action discrimination lawsuits, most lawyers bill out by the hour with employment discrimination cases. So do the math on why your lawyer might want to go to the EEOC first.

 

[QueEx]

If you are going [through] the EEOC with your employer tell your lawyer that you want a right to sue letter in federal court and <u>to not pursue your case with the EEOC</u>.

Isn't that contradictory ??? If you're pursuing the case through the EEOC, then aren't you pursuing the case through the EEOC ???

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that EEOC issues right to sue letters at the end of its administrative process, whether or not it finds that the employer has wronged the employee. The right to sue letter, I thought, meant that the "administrative process" has come to an end and the employee can now proceed to address his grievance through the federal court.

Unless they are class action discrimination lawsuits, most lawyers bill out by the hour with employment discrimination cases. So do the math on <U>why your lawyer might want to go to the EEOC first</U>.

Ever heard of "Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies" ??? That little legal doctrine that says where there is an administrative process in place to address a grievance, one has to go through that administrative process FIRST, before entering the judicial system -- in an attempt to weed-out those matters that can be handled administratively to avoid clogging court dockets.

QueEx

 

[COINTELPRO]

Isn't that contradictory ??? If you're pursuing the case through the EEOC, then aren't you pursuing the case through the EEOC ???

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that EEOC issues right to sue letters at the end of its administrative process, whether or not it finds that the employer has wronged the employee. The right to sue letter, I thought, meant that the "administrative process" has come to an end and the employee can now proceed to address his grievance through the federal court.

Ever heard of "Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies" ??? That little legal doctrine that says where there is an administrative process in place to address a grievance, one has to go through that administrative process FIRST, before entering the judicial system -- in an attempt to weed-out those matters that can be handled administratively to avoid clogging court dockets.

QueEx

Thanks for responding, no you can request the letter the same day you file the charge. However, it appears very few people are doing it, they are going through the process which takes a very long time, finds reasonable cause (discrimination) in only four percent of all complaints and significantly increases your legal bills.

No other civil lawsuits have to go through this "weeding out" process with a federal agency. Is it assumed we file frivolous cases because they are discrimination? When did the constitution allow the executive branch to act in a de facto judicial capacity with no real powers to properly investigate your case.

If you was spending $200 a hour for a lawyer, why would I want an overloaded federal agency with no authority to decide the merits of my case. This federal agency has only obtained 67 subpoenas total in over 75,000 complaints and found discrimination in four percent of all cases. Are the companies just handing over this information to the agency 99.92% of the time? I doubt it.

Would you trust this agency which is headed by people appointed by George Bush. He is not a big fan of affirmative action and pro-business, so what type of persons would he appoint? In light of these facts, I would rather file my case in federal court just like all other federal civil lawsuits, conduct depositions, and have a jury of my peers issue a verdict.

The EEOC route can easily add a year of legal bills if you tried to let them "investigate". If the EEOC find no discrimination (96% of the time), this fact can be brought up into court and influence the jury. Most of the time they are just reviewing lawyered responses from the company and making a decision off that.

 

[QueEx]

Thanks for responding, no you can request the letter the same day you file the charge. However, it appears very few people are doing it, they are going through the process which takes a very long time, finds reasonable cause (discrimination) in only four percent of all complaints and significantly increases your legal bills.

You may be right, but I don't believe that you can demand a right to sue letter. You might be confusing the EEOC with some state-law processes which allow that procedure. Once a party charges another with discrimination, the EEOC conducts its investigation and, if conciliation cannot me made between the parties, usually there are two ends: (1) the EEOC brings the action in Federal Court; or (2) it issues a right to sue letter so the private litigant can bring the action.

No other civil lawsuits have to go through this "weeding out" process with a federal agency. Is it assumed we file frivolous cases because they are discrimination? When did the constitution allow the executive branch to act in a de facto judicial capacity with no real powers to properly investigate your case.

I think you are wrong again. There are lots of areas of civil law where Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies is required, i.e., prisoner lawsuits, lawsuits where the government regulates the area, i.e., environmental matters, etc.

The executive branch is not exercising de facto judicial powers, it is exercising administrative powers, thats why in the end, a citizen still gets his day in court.

If you was spending $200 a hour for a lawyer, why would I want an overloaded federal agency with no authority to decide the merits of my case.

The agency does not decide the merits of the case. In the case of the EEOC, as I said above, it either brings the action or issues a right to sue letter to that the private litigant can bring the action. In either case, a court of law decides the merits.

This federal agency has only obtained 67 subpoenas total in over 75,000 complaints and found discrimination in four percent of all cases. Are the companies just handing over this information to the agency 99.92% of the time? I doubt it.

Employers have lots of reason to hand information over to the government and they do it on a regular basis. As an employer, why would you resist? - to bring the wrath of the government down on you ??? Of course, I'm not saying that every company in every case readily submits ALL of the information. But I believe that most do and when they get hesitant, the agency reminds them that it can subpoena documents -- which is usually enough to get cooperation. You have to understand that the subpoena power itself tends to make most cooperate -- they don't want to risk making shit worse.

Would you trust this agency which is headed by people appointed by George Bush.

I don't give 2 cents for GW, but federal agencies, below the very top levels, are manned by career bureaucrats who don't change their ways too much no matter who is president. The bureaucrats just bureaucrat. Again, there are bound to be some who may change the way the administer the rules based on who might be president, but most bureaucrats just want to get their time in to retire -- they don't want a lot of controversy to fuck up that retirement. Some are assholes and some are not.

He is not a big fan of affirmative action and pro-business, so what type of persons would he appoint? In light of these facts, I would rather file my case in federal court just like all other federal civil lawsuits, conduct depositions, and have a jury of my peers issue a verdict.

Here's what I think: instead of being overly concerned with the administrative process -- its the courts where the attention should be. Appointments to the Supreme Court and lower appellate courts is where the real decisions that affect our lives are made.

The EEOC route can easily add a year of legal bills if you tried to let them "investigate". If the EEOC find no discrimination (96% of the time), this fact can be brought up into court and influence the jury. Most of the time they are just reviewing lawyered responses from the company and making a decision off that.

I know lots of lawyers who won't take an EEOC case. Why: because most plaintiffs tend to be full of shit and want free legal assistance. It takes a whole lot of time to pursue properly an EEOC case, and most plaintiffs don't have or don't want to fork over what it takes to do it. There are a lot of legitimate discrimination cases out there, but many are bullshit - people yelling discrimination, discrimination, when there are other causes for the problem (that from personal experience).

QueEx

 

[COINTELPRO]

The EEOC does "label" the merits of your case by making reasonable cause or no reasonable cause determinations. They can issue you a right to sue after 180 days but most complaints have a no reasonable label put on them before deciding to go to court. How would you feel as a juror in federal court, if they tell you the EEOC found a no reasonable cause determination for this case?

Can you think of any of other federal civil law where you have this type of jacked up "adminstrative" process before you can go to court between two private parties? Prisoner I can see, those make sense, but an lawsuit between two private parties (person vs company)? For example, civil environmental cases like asbestos can file in court and have no adminstrative process for their cases. Many of the people who got meso won big awards. Environmental cases between a person and a company do not have an adminstrative process. This is how a discrimination complaint is structured...

That is sad that prisoners and discrimination complaints go through the same process. Our complaints are treated the same as prisoners. I can take a debt collector for violating the federal debt collection practices act (FDCPA) to federal court without this "adminstrative" process.

It looks like the EEOC are eager to issue them; however, the courts are rejecting cases that do not exhaust all adminstrative processes like you said. However, this adminstrative process is discriminatory because no other federal civil laws are enforced in this way and causes unequal protection.

Here is the dilemma, in order for the EEOC to get a subpoena they have to file your entire case in federal court(less than one percent are taken on by the EEOC) which the company lawyers know. Why would a company be afraid of the EEOC if only 67 subpoenas have been issued? I know the threat of a subpoena might will get alot of companies to cooperate but they know the EEOC is backlogged significantly. With those type of odds, I would just give them the run around and play the odds which are very favorable for the company.

If the government is not going to enforce the law than get rid of it...

 

[COINTELPRO]

They have to wait out the 180 days before the EEOC can give you letter, the courts have been returning cases back to the EEOC because of early right to sue letters, B.S.

However, your case would be adminstratively closed if a right to sue letter after 180 days is issued and no determination is made. Most cases are backlogged for 400 days so your lawyer is not aggressively getting a right to sue letter after 180 days before your case is "labeled" by the EEOC.

I know there are alot of baseless discrimination complaints but so are the other type of lawsuits. There is a lady suing Starbucks because she accidentally spilled a drink on her baby and it burned the skin off. The key word is she did it not Star Bucks. The lawyer are not to shy to take these cases st8 to court and not have an "adminstrative" process to deal with.

 

[NeoSoulTheory]

I got screwed over by the EEOC not to long ago… Any chance I can still sue with the 180 days being up. I had solid evidence and still lost. A lawyer took on my case and we both let 180 days go by. Fucking racist bastards won.

Any chance on filling a lawsuit against the EEOC for doing a pathetic job on the investigation?

 

[QueEx]

I got screwed over by the EEOC not to long ago… Any chance I can still sue with the 180 days being up. I had solid evidence and still lost. A lawyer took on my case and we both let 180 days go by. Fucking racist bastards won.

Any chance on filling a lawsuit against the EEOC for doing a pathetic job on the investigation?

You just admitted: You Slept.

QueEx

 

[COINTELPRO]

I got screwed over by the EEOC not to long ago… Any chance I can still sue with the 180 days being up. I had solid evidence and still lost. A lawyer took on my case and we both let 180 days go by. Fucking racist bastards won.

Any chance on filling a lawsuit against the EEOC for doing a pathetic job on the investigation?

After 180 days, your lawyers should have gotten a right to sue letter. You can get that after 180 days and gives you 90 days to file your case in federal court. It is legal malpractice for your lawyer to wait for the EEOC after 180 days to make a determination of no reasonable cause. The NAACP or ACLU need to challenge this process since it makes our cases second-class. No other federal civil case goes through this backwards process and is discriminatory.

Furthermore, The EEOC finds no reasonable cause (discrimination) 93+ percent of the time damaging your case if you had filed in federal court (See Comment 3). You want your case administratively closed and a right to sue letter issued; tell the EEOC not to make a determination and get lost.

You don’t want the EEOC investigating since they are overloaded and will do damage to your case if they make a determination of no reasonable cause for discrimination. Very few companies enter into conciliations agreements so you are wasting your time with the process. Furthermore, the EEOC only takes a tiny amount of complaints to court (<1%) so there is no need to wait.

When your lawyer takes your case to federal court he can conduct discovery/subpoena/depositions of the company records and people that were involved in the incident and present this information to a jury of your peers rather than an overworked bureacrat at the EEOC. 99.92 percent of the time the EEOC relies on voluntary compliance of companies. You do the math on what will happen.

 

[COINTELPRO]

I bashed on Bush in an earlier comment, however; the stats were just as bad under Clinton.

These observation apply to State Civil Rights Commissions since most mimic the EEOC in procedures and many state law pattern themselves after the federal one.

 

[NeoSoulTheory]

Thanks for the information… I wish I knew this before a filled a case with the EEOC. It is sad that the racist whites will now get away with this like they do with everything else.

 

[COINTELPRO]

Thanks for the information… I wish I knew this before a filled a case with the EEOC. It is sad that the racist whites will now get away with this like they do with everything else.

I filed my complaint with the State Civil Rights Commission awhile back and although I dropped the complaint, I was able to observe a little bit about the process. Most people think they have to win their cases with them and foolishly expend precious legal resources. You want to get your case to court since the EEOC has no authority to enforce their determination and companies know it. Lawyers will be all to happy to extend your case through the EEOC since they are probably billing you by the hour.

I also noticed that no other private lawsuit goes through this process. I know property taxes, social security, and unemployment have administrative processes before you file suit. However, if you decide to sue after all the administrative process, it is between you and the government, not another private party. Since the government is being sued it has a legitimate reason to get involved. Labor Union Contracts have an admistrative process with their grievance system; however, it was agreed by the Union and not forced by law.

The EEOC is not party to the lawsuit and appears to the jury as impartial so a determination by them will impact your case.

 

[COINTELPRO]

I saw in the news the other day where Mr. Goldman dropped a lawsuit on OJ in federal court over his book without wasting his legal resources with a "administrative" processes. Imagine if he had to wait one year+, have his case inadequately investigated like the EEOC does, and finally labeled authoritatively by the DOJ - Attorney General as having no merit. Oh by the way here is right to sue in federal court letter, good luck. People would be raising hell than.

People are risking a lot (blacklisted and harassment) coming forward with their complaints. I am still paying a heavy price after filing my complaint. It is also sad they honor MLK who fought for this law but treat these complaints poorly.

 

[rude_dog]

2 things about this. Not really much to had.

First, several months ago, they were several articles written about how Bush had fucked upthe eeoc. A lot of the senior lawyers were leaving because of his administration. I'm sorry I can't remember the reasons but they said it was clear the administration didn't want to enforce civil rights. Funny thing is instead of protecting people due to their race, color, or national origin, the new administration made it a priorioty to defend people who felt that they were discriminated on because of being Christian.

Second, I had a classmate in the academy who left my agency to take a job as an investigator with the EEOC. A young white guy who stood out from the others as really racist. The kind of guy who claimed that affirmative action kept him from going to law school and not the fact that he got a 2.5 gpa in criminal justice.

 

[COINTELPRO]

2 things about this. Not really much to had.

First, several months ago, they were several articles written about how Bush had fucked upthe eeoc. A lot of the senior lawyers were leaving because of his administration. I'm sorry I can't remember the reasons but they said it was clear the administration didn't want to enforce civil rights. Funny thing is instead of protecting people due to their race, color, or national origin, the new administration made it a priorioty to defend people who felt that they were discriminated on because of being Christian.

Second, I had a classmate in the academy who left my agency to take a job as an investigator with the EEOC. A young white guy who stood out from the others as really racist. The kind of guy who claimed that affirmative action kept him from going to law school and not the fact that he got a 2.5 gpa in criminal justice.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002175.php

You are right, that is why the NAACP needs to get off their ass and get involved. If you think agency bureaucrats aren't affected by polictics take a look at this article. I dealt with this racist jerk when filing my complaint, he left out material facts and wrote it in such a way to be easily defeated. You and your attorney control what is written in your charge papers; don't let them set your case up to fail so they can clear their backlog or get even because of affirmative action.

I would still like to be proven wrong about my observation. Why is our cases the only ones to go through this process? I bet the legal community wishes more cases had this administrative process, more billable hours.

All other adminstrative processes have the government party to the lawsuit (Social Security, Property Taxes, Unemployment, etc.). If they deny benefits or raise taxes than after you complete all the appeals with the agency, your lawsuit is between you and the government agency. Therefore, they have a reason to get involved.

But your case is between you and your employer. Two private parties, where one alleges injury from having their civil rights violated. Why does the executive branch of the government interfere in this way without being party to the lawsuit? The civil rights struggle is not over, the NAACP and Civil Rights Leaders needs to quit chasing Dennys & Cracker Barrel with stupid lawsuits or being a Democrat front to get the vote out.

If I can notice these things, than why can't all their legal talent they have stocked up see it. I keep repeating myself, but I hate to see people risk getting blacklisted and get screwed by the system like me.

 

[COINTELPRO]

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm

Here is another example of housing discrimination having to go through this process. Why is all discrimination laws structured like this? What a waste of your legal resources and opposing counsel will just sit back knowing any determination is not enforceable unless petitioned in court.

Does the government think all discrimination claims are frivolous and they need the DOJ to "weed out" these claims out. Here is another example of the executive branch acting in a judicial capacity by making determinations of civil cases that are between two private parties.

The DOJ (Executive Branch) are not party to these lawsuits so they need to stop blocking people from relief in court & increasing legal bills.

 

[COINTELPRO]

Bump this thread up, I summarized the key points to remember before you step to the EEOC/State Civil Rights Commission and discuss with your attorney in the starter thread. You never know when you could be involved in this process, I would have never guessed.

On one had you had the FBI-DOJ running COINTELPRO to assassinate civil right leader and disrupt groups. Than congress comes along and gives the EEOC-DOJ power to investigate discrimination claims with the Civil Rights Act. It doesn't make sense to me...

Did your relatives ever get their 40 acres and a mule?

 

[QueEx]

Frankly Bro,

If the administrative process is not working, I feel ya -- and it needs to be examined. My firm handled these type cases years ago but we stopped --too much time with bullshit cases. Tpically, and I do mean typically, complainants usually had rather flimsy claims and often times their complaints were in retaliation for action already being taken against them by their employers, i.e., terminations and demotions.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there are not a lot of cases of actionable discrimination out there, including your case. Just letting you know what my experience has been. I don't agree with some of the things you said above but I'm not in a position to know whether the EEOC should go. Maybe it should or maybe it needs to be revamped. Maybe where it is now is a reflection of the number of years, excluding Clinton's 2 terms, its been under Republican influence. Maybe those years have taken their toll. I don't know.

QueEx

QueEx

 

[COINTELPRO]

Thanks for responding, I am pretty sure there are frivolous complaints out of retaliation. I just want the same process that all other federal lawsuits enjoy. Besides a judge can throw out a frivolous case at anytime or the defendant can petition the court to dismiss which attorneys frequently do to defend their clients. In general, it is similiar to giving us Voting Rights but playing games with having poll taxes and literacy tests.

This issue effects all protected classes (women, people with disabilities, Equal Pay, age), it is not just a racial discrimination issue. I am also not saying the EEOC has not done anything for Civil Rights, they are just overworked and underfunded to help everybody. In some cases by being unable to adequately investigate every complaint thoroughly, they are doing more harm by labeling cases as having no merit (no reasonable cause).

It was suspect to give the DOJ this unusual power over lawsuit between two private parties while they were also running COINTELPRO against civil rights groups/leaders. In the long term, when companies face a real civil rights process, I think more minorities will retained/promoted/hired. It could also reduce civil rights violations when the process improves;similiar to what happened after the Enron scandal.

I am looking to take action and not just complaining by organizing a website based on my experience/observation. I have seen people do it with debt collectors and credit reports, it provided lots of useful information to me. That way people can make an informed decision with their attorney/EEOC. It won't be legal advice or nothing like that, just based on stats/research/discussions with attorneys.

 

[QueEx]

Thanks for responding, I am pretty sure there are frivolous complaints out of retaliation. I just want the same process that all other federal lawsuits enjoy. Besides a judge can throw out a frivolous case at anytime or the defendant can petition the court to dismiss which attorneys frequently do to defend their clients. In general, it is similiar to giving us Voting Rights but playing games with having poll taxes and literacy tests.

A lawyer has a duty not to bring frivolous cases and one who does is subject to Rule 11 sanctions. Nevertheless, as we all know, frivolous and borderline frivolous are brought everyday and most tend to proceed up to summary judgment where they are then dismissed. I was once a plaintiff's lawyer and argued strongly against dismissal, at any stage, holding the view that the matter ought to be left to the jury. On the other hand, when you see, plainly, that a case has no merit and you're on a contingency basis, you tell the potential client up-front, that you can't in good conscience bring the action.

The same holds in the EEOC context. As you know, NO CASE is stopped at the EEOC level and EVERY CASE proceeds past it, by way of the right to sue letter. In other words, if the EEOC cannot resolve the matter satisfactorily to the plaintiff, he/she gets the right to bring the action in the Federal Court. While I understand your arguement as to why the EEOC step may be unnecessary, be that as it may, the EEOC process does not prevent a plaintiff from having his day in court.

This issue effects all protected classes (women, people with disabilities, Equal Pay, age), it is not just a racial discrimination issue. I am also not saying the EEOC has not done anything for Civil Rights, they are just overworked and underfunded to help everybody. In some cases by being unable to adequately investigate every complaint thoroughly, they are doing more harm by labeling cases as having no merit (no reasonable cause).

Here again, I see your point but I don't know if it is as crucial as you make it sound. As I read your earlier posts, your concern is that the "no reasonable cause finding" may be introduced in the Federal Court proceeding. There are at least two (2) problems with that:

1. A finding of no reasonable cause cannot, vel non, that is without other evidence or the lack thereof, be the basis of dismissal for failure to state a claim or at the summary judgment stage where the factual basis of the case is tested (at summary judgment, the case may be dismissed if the plaintiff has not submitted substantial evidence of the discriminatory conduct or acts).

2. Even if the court allows the no reasonable cause finding to be introduced during the trial of the case, while the same can be damaging in the minds of the jury -- it is only one (1) piece of evidence to be considered with all of the other evidence, the most important of which is: the facts offered to prove the defendant has discriminated against the plaintiff. While I am not fool enough to believe that some jury wouldn't give more weight to the EEOC finding than the actual evidence presented at the trial, I have doubts that such is the usual case. As you know, some juries, even without hearing about the EEOC's finding, will find against the plaintiff, sometimes when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff.​

Nevertheless, I stand with you that the EEOC determination ought not be admitted since it invades the province of the jury (that is, it is the responsibility of the jury to hear the facts and to decide what weight to give to the facts and find which ones are true and which ones are not --- hence, providing the jury with a "Conclusion" reached by the EEOC shouldn't be allowed in because the "Conclusion" is not a "FACT" (fact = what someone did, said, etc.), but merely a determination based on the EEOC's view of the facts that were presented to it (which may not be the same facts presented to the jury).

It was suspect to give the DOJ this unusual power over lawsuit between two private parties while they were also running COINTELPRO against civil rights groups/leaders. In the long term, when companies face a real civil rights process, I think more minorities will retained/promoted/hired. It could also reduce civil rights violations when the process improves;similiar to what happened after the Enron scandal.

Is that really helpful??? Does making that statement tend to prove, in any way, that cases are not being handled properly by the EEOC??? I would submit to you that it does not, moreover, in my lowly held opinion, it detracts, takes away, reduces ... the good points that you raise. Unless you have something that seriously ties COINTELPRO to actions by the EEOC, I think making such an unfounded statement goes against your own credibility. Just my observation -- for whatever its worth.

I am looking to take action and not just complaining by organizing a website based on my experience/observation. I have seen people do it with debt collectors and credit reports, it provided lots of useful information to me. That way people can make an informed decision with their attorney/EEOC. It won't be legal advice or nothing like that, just based on stats/research/discussions with attorneys.

I think that you should take this issue further and do all that you can to cause change where change is needed. I just wouldn't add baggage that hurts rather than helps your cause (see above) unless you can affirmatively show that COINTELPRO is somehow "rationally related" to your argument. Lastly, I wouldn't rely too much on those stats. I looked at them and I can tell you that someone on the other side of your argument can use them in their favor just as well. I have a saying that I will share with you (BTW, I rarely get into legal analysis on this board), "close the back door." That is, when constructing your case/arguments in favor of a matter, be sure you consider each and every argument the other side will or can make and be damn sure you have a reasonable, believable and rational counter to it.

Peace,

QueEx

 

[COINTELPRO]

I got screwed over by the EEOC not to long ago… Any chance I can still sue with the 180 days being up. I had solid evidence and still lost. A lawyer took on my case and we both let 180 days go by. Fucking racist bastards won.

Any chance on filling a lawsuit against the EEOC for doing a pathetic job on the investigation?

Quex,

You made some excellent points, I don't see nothing wrong the existence of EEOC, I just want to make sure people’s expectations are appropriate before proceeding. If I decide to create a website, it might encourage those to not go forward with frivolous claims or help those people with legitimate claims. They will see the odds of retaliating against their employer as being small and most companies will not budge during the process. You might not agree but I see certain roles of the EEOC as being on constitutionally shaky ground.

I read a newspaper article a couple of months ago about the stats and looked at it myself on the website. I didn't know it was that bad otherwise I would have not filed my complaint. I would like to warn complainants to always bring a lawyer to the EEOC and control what is written in the charge papers. Complainants also need to know they can do serious permanent career damage if they file a discrimination complaint.

I don't want somebody to get discourage like this guy, he wrongly thinks he lost his "case" and shouldn’t proceed forward. Many people falsely believe a no reasonable cause determination means they lost ending their case. I didn’t know and felt the same way afterwards also because the information is difficult to find or in legalese. You and I understand that a person can get their day in court but the "perception" of them being a judicial process might confuses a complainant by them issuing determinations.

Overall, complainants should be upfront with the EEOC and let them know their goal is to seek relief in court, not make a determination and/or mediate a resolution between both parties. That way the EEOC can focus on helping people that need it and won't damage your case. I made a comment about COINTELPRO to show the irony of the agency since it is under the DOJ. I have no proof that J Edgar Hoover affected civil rights cases with the EEOC.

 

[COINTELPRO]

Bump this thread from a company perspective:

QueEX made a good point about dealing with a number baseless EEOC complaints out of retaliation. As a result, thousand upon thousands of complaints are filed each year against employers at these agencies. In each case (frivolous or not), a company has to mount a full legal defense to prevent a reasonable cause determination. The legal defense for companies cost them serious money each time.

If these complaint were taken to court, they can recover legal fees if a person loses their case or is found to be frivolous. However, since the complaint is an administrative process, they can't recover none of their legal fees during this process. Another reason the government should not have structured the Civil Rights Laws in this "unique" way.

 

[rude_dog]

I don't know what your particular situation is but if you're over 40, age discrimination is the best way to go. When they included age discrimination, they placed different, more leinent laws on age discrimination. Many more age discrimination cases are resolved in favor of the plantiff. It makes sense, it's the mid-level white male hustle.

 

[COINTELPRO]

Nah I am not looking to ever file a discrimination complaint, just trying to drop some knowledge and get a discussion. I responded to a couple of threads of people documenting evidence at work and wanted to make sure it is known what they were up against.

They only find age discrimination four percent of the time similiar to race based charges. In age discrimination the settlement rate is 9 percent, where they get some type of agreement with the respondent.

You don't know if they are entering into settlement agreements to avoid legal fees for the company or the complainant settles for less without getting their job back. It still leaves a large chunk of complaints that don't get resolved or get a finding of no reasonable cause. I think people are getting shafted since they do not have the court system to leverage settlement agreements.