EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246 Executive Order 11246, issued on September 24, 1965, declares the Federal executive policy against discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. Discrimination in employment by the Federal Government is prohibited. A positive, continuing program to promote equal employment opportunity is required of each executive department and agency, under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission. The agencies must review all complaints of discrimination and the Commission is directed to consider all appeals thereon. Discrimination in employment under Government contracts and subcontracts, including federally-assisted construction contracts, is also prohibited. The Secretary of Labor is responsible for the administration of this program. Compliance Reports are required from contractors, which must include information as to the practices and policies of labor unions and of agencies referring workers to the contractor or providing or supervising apprenticeship or training for his workers. Complaints may be filed with the Secretary of Labor or with the contracting agency involved. Compliance officers are required to seek compliance by conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion. If such efforts fail, sanctions may be imposed, including publishing the names of violators, cancelling or suspending the contract, or barring the contractor from future Government contracts; or the case may be referred to the Justice Department for enforcement by civil or criminal proceedings. The Secretary of Labor or any executive agency may hold public or private hearings if deemed advisable, for compliance, enforcement, or educational purposes. SUMMARIES OF STATE LABOR LAWS Labor Law Series No. 1 No. 2 No. 3-A No. 3-B No. 3-C No. 4-A No. 4-B No. 4-C No. 4-D No. 4-E No. 4-F No. 5 No. 6-A Outline of Labor Law Development in the United States Status of Agricultural Workers Under State and Federal State Child Labor Laws Questions and Answers on Child Labor Laws State Minimum Wage Laws State Wage Payment and Wage Collection Laws State Provisions Exempting Wages from Garnishment Debt Pooling and Garnishment in Relation to Consumer State Laws Regulating Private Employment Agencies State Fair Employment Practice Acts State Laws Prohibiting Discrimination in Employment Age Discrimination Prohibited Under State Laws--A Table State Labor Relations Acts No. 6-B No. 6-C No. 7-A No. 7-B State Mediation Laws State Occupational Safety and Health Legislation Senator CLARK. I have only one more question, Mr. Secretary. When Mr. Shulman was here, I pressed him pretty hard, and without success, as to whether there was any evidence of a pattern of geographical discrimination in employment, and his initial answer was that they could not tell any such pattern from the complaints that were filed and then later that he wasn't prepared to say on the basis of what he knew that there was any such geographical pattern. And finally, he did admit that in States where there were no perceptible numbers of Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Spanish Americans and Mexican Americans, there tended to be fewer complaints than in other places. Then I raised with him the question of intimidation, as to why complaints might not have been filed, and he was not prepared to answer that. I don't want to put you on the spot. Do you have any feeling, empirically or on the basis of the statistics, that there is a geographical pattern of discrimination? And let me help you out a little by saying I know that in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania there is much more discrimination in Philadelphia and in Pittsburgh than there is in the rural counties where these problems rarely arise. It doesn't mean that I don't think we have pretty good State FPEC's; it doesn't mean that I don't think the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has done a pretty good job with its limited power. I think it has. Can you help the subcommittee out in this area at all? Secretary WIRTZ. I find it more and more necessary to distinguish between two pairs of things: "Discrimination" in the active current sense of the exercise of prejudice today; and, on the other hand, “disadvantage" accumulating from the past and taking the form of current unqualification. Senator CLARK. The net effect is the same? Secretary WIRTZ. Yes; but my answer to your question would suggest a difference between the two. Although I don't have the statistics on hand to prove it, I think that the factor of discrimination-in the sense of actually taking a prejudiced action on the basis of just the fact of race is probably still more prevalent in the Southern part of the country than it is in the North. However, the impact of being disadvantaged, in the sense of unqualified is probably greater in the North than it is in the South, because of the migration from the South to the North. I cannot temporize with the problem of the disadvantaged any more than I can with discrimination because it seems to me there is an obligation to eliminate that disadvantage. I would find a larger burden on that point, just as you suggest, in those areas in which there is a large number now of minority groups, and that includes the large cities in the North more than any other. Putting it differently and in terms of what to do about it, I would bore in on the concentrated problem of unemployment and the disadvantaged, which is characteristic at least in terms of total numbers more of the northern metropolitan areas than it is of any the others, because that is where the real hard problem of disadvantage is centered. One other point, and that has to do with the difference between hiring and the promotion. I think that there there is no indication 80-226 0-67- -8 ཀུན་ as far as a large number of the Southern States are concerned, no indication of a willingness to go beyond, as far as most employers are concerned, the elimination of discrimination in hiring and extend it to promotions. Putting it differently, these employers don't bar the entry of minority group workers into jobs but then they just don't go anyplace. So on the entry hiring, I think that is pretty well licked throughout the country, the discrimination on that; but when it comes to promotion and upgrading, I think there is some regional distinction. Senator CLARK. Thank you very much. We are grateful to you for appearing before us. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 2:30 this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. on the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Senator CLARK: The subcommittee will resume its session. Our witnesses this afternoon are five distinguished leaders in the civil rights movement: Mr. Roy Wilkins, chairman of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Mr. Jack Greenberg, director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Mr. Clarence M. Mitchell, director, Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., general counsel of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and Mr. Whitney M. Young, Jr., executive director of the National Urban League, Inc. On behalf of the subcommittee I would like to welcome all of you gentlemen to our hearings. We are looking forward with great pleasure to any help you can give us regarding this legislation and your views about it. Mr. Young, Mr. Greenberg, and Mr. Wilkins have submitted prepared statements which I have had an opportunity to read. I will ask that each of them be printed in the record at this point in full. (The prepared statements referred to follow :) PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK GREENBERG, DIRECTOR-COUNSEL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. My name is Jack Greenberg. I am testifying pursuant to an invitation extended by Senator Clark to participate in a panel of witnesses representing civil rights organizations and to express my views on the equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and proposed amendments to the Act. I am Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Our organization has a deep interest in the vindication of fundamental human rights through the legal process, having devoted ourselves totally to such a program since we were formed in 1939. Perhaps the most celebrated example of the capacity of the law to start a country moving on fundamental problems in race relations is the Supreme Court decision in the School Segregation Cases, which were brought under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, my predecessor as Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. Following the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and its becoming effective in 1965, we filed 37 cases in the United States District Courts. I would like to share with you our experiences with these cases because they are virtually all of the litigation now pending under the Act. Several other organizations have four or five cases among them, and the Attorney General of the United States, I believe, filed two cases. Two kinds of experiences have stemmed from these filings. The first is rather gratifying because it demonstrates the capacity of the statute and men of good will to work out differences which will secure employment to Negro workers who have been victims of racial discrimination and until passage of the law had no remedy. The first category of outcome consists of favorable settlements we have obtained. The first case which we filed was against the A & P in Wilmington, North Carolina. The settlement of that case secured the plaintiff an immediate placement as a cashier in the A & P store in Wilmington, in addition to the assurance of the company to place other Negroes in similar and other positions in both North and South Carolina. Following this, more than 60 Negroes have been employed by A & P in jobs that they had theretofore not been able to hold. Another indication of the capacity of a lawsuit to lay the basis for effective settlement of civil rights claims is the much celebrated Newport News Shipbuilding case. Even though the shipbuilding company came under the jurisdiction of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and had been under investigation by OFCC for many years, there was no effective movement towards settlement of outstanding claims of racial discrimination until after we filed the lawsuit. With the case pending, counsel for the plaintiffs and representatives of the United States for the first time were able to work out an effective settlement with the company whereby hundreds of Negro workers moved into craft and supervisory positions theretofore barred to them. Similarly in the case of Wilson v. Friedman-Marks Clothing Company, in Richmond, Virginia, we filed suit on behalf of Negro workers who had theretofore been limited to lower paying and menial jobs in one or two departments in a men's clothing manufacturing plant. On the eve of the trial, a settlement was worked out whereby the company agreed to allow Negroes to transfer to departments and jobs theretofore limited to white employees. Similarly, we have just settled a case with The Monsanto Company involving its Eldorado, Arkansas facilities. As a result of this settlement, Negroes will be enjoying jobs that theretofore had been barred to them because of race. On the other hand, many of the cases are beginning to follow the classic pattern of prolonged and difficult school segregation litigation. Every procedural technicality imaginable must be gone through before the case comes to trial. Most of the cases are hung up on such technical-procedural questions as: exhaustion of administrative remedies; satisfaction of certain statutes of limitations; propriety of filing class actions; whether conciliation is a precondition to filing suit and similar issues. Indeed, the first actual trial in a case of racial discrimination in employment (Quarles v. Philip Morris, in Richmond, Virginia) began only this week, almost two years after the effective date of the Act in July 1965. I might add that many of the large corporations and labor unions involved in employment litigation are employing some of the most vigorous and skillful counsel in the country and that a great deal of protracted and difficult litigation is in prospect. A list of pending Title VII cases is appended to this statement. Out of these experiences, we would like to make several suggestions concerning the proposed Bill S. 1308, the Clark-Javits Bill. We heartily applaud the provisions of the Bill which give the Commission cease and desist powers. Long ago it was learned that public rights cannot effectively be enforced by leaving them solely to private litigants. As a result, there has been enacted the Securities and Exchange Commission Act, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Pure Food and Drug Laws, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, and similar agencies. The extent of racial discrimination in employment in America is so vast that there never will be progress unless government is armed with the power to move forward admnistratively on a broad scale. At the same time our experience in the field of racial discrimination demonstrates that this Bill wisely preserves the rights of private suits alongside administrative enforcement by the government. The entire history of the developmen of civil rights law is that private suits have lead the way and government enforcement has followed. For example, the first declaration that it was unconstitutional for local institutions supported in part by federal funds to discriminate on the basis of race came in a lawsuit which the Legal Defense Fund brought (Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 323 F. 2d 959 (5th Cir. 1963)). In that case the "separate but equal" provision of the Hill-Burton Act, was held unconstitutional. The theory of this case was embodied in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, giving administrative enforcement to various |