Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

would be filed with the Commission. The Commission would turn it over to the State commission. The State commission would fail to act on it and therefore the Federal Commission would get it back again and in this procedure an awful lot of time would go by before the complainant had a determination as to whether the complaint was adequate.

Mr. MITCHELL. Again I hate to hog the show but I have lived with this thing so long that I think the public is entitled to know the facts. The only reason for all this deference to these States where there are laws is pure, unadulterated politics. The Federal Government has preemption in our system of government and has the last word on constitutional questions and Federal laws. There is no reason in the world why there should be any statutory requirement which makes it mandatory for this Commission to first clear with some State agency.

This Commission ought to have the discretionary right to defer to States but when we were working on this legislation there were a lot of people who had pet State laws who said—"we have to make sure that our State has a full opportunity to exercise its jurisdiction."

The result is that the poor complainant is in the shuttlecock position that you so aptly point out, Senator Clark. He gets battered back and forth. If he has the good fortune to be released quickly by the Commission and he happens to fall into the hands of a good ľawyer like Mr. Rauh or Mr. Greenberg he gets redress as they have gotten by taking cases into court very promptly. There is no reason why the Federal Government shouldn't do that and I think it is just foolish to have all this deference paid to the States where there are enforceable laws.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Mitchell, let's face it. You did not make your considerable reputation in the civil rights field, by becoming an advocate of States rights.

Mr. Young. Senator Clark, I am going to have to ask to be excused.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Young, you have been a great help to us. I am sorry you have to leave.

Mr. Young. Thank you very much.

Mr. GREENBERG. I would like to add to what Mr. Mitchell said that at the State as well as the Federal level the necessity is a good statute but that is only the beginning. If a good statute is not enforced adequately it is perhaps worse than no statute because it breeds cynicism. We have made a study of the New York statute not with respect to employment but with respect to housing which is one of the matters within its jurisdiction and we have found that as far as the New York statute is concerned with respect to housing which is under the same Commission that it is exceedingly inadequate and have filed some complaints with respect to that so that the mere existence of a State law amounts to nothing. I would endorse what Mr. Mitchell said, that there should be some discretionary power in the Commission to evaluate the value of a State law and where appropriate act without reference to the State.

Senator CLARK. I would like to have printed in the record at this point pages 58 through 64, inclusive, of the First Annual Report of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which gives at least some of the data the subcommittee has been looking for with respect to the distribution among the States, the different kinds of complaints which have been received.

(The material referred to follows:)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

ANALYSIS OF CHARGES

July 2, 1965-June 30, 1966

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

704

[ocr errors]

60

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

TOTAL MATTERS ANALYZED

The Office of Compliance has received and analyzed the following matters: 8854
The following action has been taken (individual charges);
Deferred for state or local FEPC action ...

977
Additional information required :

1383 No probable jurisdiction

2063 Other (close, withdrawn, pending reanalysis)

658
Recommended for investigation ...,

. 3773
Status of Investigations (individual charges)
Investigations completed

1659
in process and pending .

2114
Status of Conciliations
Recommended for conciliation (following Commission finding of cause);

Individual charges.
Respondents ...

214
Successful conciliations
Individual charges

111
Respondents ..

45
Unsuccessful conciliations

Individual charges
Respondents.

16
Partially successful
Individual charges

20
Respondents.

7
In process and pending
Individual charges.

513
Respondents.

146
RECOMMENDED FOR INVESTIGATION, DEFERRED, AND
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

Of the 8854 matters received and analyzed, the following have been recom-
mended for investigation, deferred, or additional information required: ..., 6133
The nature of the discriminations alleged was as follows:
Negro....

3067
Race-Other

64 American Indian

10 Caucasian..

39 Chinese.

1 Filipino

2 Latin

4 Spanish.

8 Race - Not Specified.

123 National Origin .

131 African

1 Greek

2 Latin American

8 Mexican American.

72 Cuban

2 Italian

3 Slavic .

3 Lebanese

1 Not Specified

39 Sex..

2053 Religion..

87 Not Specified

608

[ocr errors]

EC

Pace - Not tonal On

Mexican

The nature of the employment problem or problems alleged was as follows:
Hiring....

1400
Promotion..

1253 Training and Apprenticeship

184 Segregated Facilities

322 Benefits ...

807 Wage Differential.

679 Seniority

955 Layoff

447 Firing

474
State Employment Service - Referral

55
State Employment Service - Testing .
Private Employment Service

2
Union - Referral ...

53 Union - Membership

120 Union - Apprenticeship

9 Other

457 Not Specified

162 The respondents involved in these matters were as follows: Employer

5284 Union...

1347 State Employment Service

89 Private Employment Service

23 Labor-Management Apprenticeship Training Program

2 Not Specified

290
These matters were divided by state as follows:
Alabama..
531 Nebraska

81
Alaska..
2 Nevada..

10
Arkansas
55 New Hampshire.

2
Arizona.
11 New Jersey

490
California.
210 New Mexico

18
Colorado
29 New York

177
Connecticut
35 North Carolina

709
Delaware
10 North Dakota

2
District of Columbia. 35 Ohio

341
Florida
67 Oklahoma

16
Georgia.
116 Oregon

14
Idaho..
1 Pennsylvania

190
Illinois.
190 Rhode Island

2
Towa
228 South Carolina.

132
Indiana
118 South Dakota .

1
Kansas
519 Tennessee

352
Kentucky

45
Texas

284
Louisiana

192
Utah

5
Massachusetts.
33 Vermont

3
Maine ...
5 Virginia..

218
Maryland
112 Washington.

24
Michigan
98 West Virginia

30
Minnesota
34 Wisconsin

23
Mississippi
102 Wyoming

3
Missouri...
223 Hawaii

2
Montana

3

Cuban
Greek
Italian
Latin
Ameri
Hung
Africi

Not:
Sex....
Religion

Not Spe
The nature

Hiring
Promot
Trainir
Segres
Benet
Wage
Senic
Layo"
Firin
Stat
Stat
Uni
Uni
Un
Pri
Ot

Nc
The re

ع

The

3773

2026

RECOMMENDED FOR INVESTIGATION.
The nature of the discriminations alleged was as follows:

Negro....
Race-Other

13

Latin
Spanish.'
Caucasian.

4
1
8

818

Race--Not Specified..

28 National Origin ....

50 Mexican American

25 Cuban

1 Greek.

1 Italian

1 Latin American.

8 American Indian.

1 Hungarian.

1 African

1 Not Specified

11 Sex

1624 Religion..

14 Not Specified

18 The nature of the employment problem or problems alleged was as follows:

Hiring...
Promotion....

828 Training and Apprenticeship

160 Segregated Facilities

279 Benefits

744 Wage Differential

463 Seniority ....

804 Layoff and Recall.

293 Firing

136 State Employment Service - Referral

22 State Employment Service - Testing

6 Union - Referral.

9 Union - Membership

21 Union-Apprenticeship

6 Private Employment Agency Referral

2 Other ...

194 Not Specified

4 The respondents involved in these matters were as follows: Employer

2551 Union...

580 State Employment Service .

42 Private Employment Service

10 Labor-Management Apprenticeship Training Program

1 Not Specified

7 These matters were divided by state as follows: Alabama.. 457 Mississippi

79 Arizona. 2 Minnesota

23 Arkansas 39 Missouri..

21 Colorado 10 Nevada..

1 California. 65 New Hampshire.

1 Connecticut 6 New Jersey.

426 Delaware 2 New Mexico

2 District of Columbia. 4 New York,

11 Florida 38 North Carolina,

615 Georgia

Ohio

173 Illinois. 55 Oklahoma

6 Indiana 40 Oregon

2 lowa 216 Pennsylvania

44 Kentucky

30
Rhode Island

2 Kansas. 488 South Carolina.

88 Louisiana 145 Tennessee

212 Maine. 1 Texas..

164 Maryland 1 Virginia..

169 Massachusetts. 3 Washington.

5 Michigan 45 West Virginia

10 Wisconsin

2

70

[blocks in formation]

DEFERRED FOR STATE OR LOCAL FEP ACTION..
The nature of the discriminations alleged was as follows:

Negro .....
Race-Other
Caucasian.

12
Spanish ..

5 American Indian.

8
Filipino

1
Race - Not Specified
National Origin .
Mexican American

17
Italian

2 Greek

1 Slavic.

1
Not Specified

19
Sex..
Religion..
Not Specified

[blocks in formation]

Mex
Spa
Cut
No

Sla
Sex.
Religie
Not S

To the ext em Or PT

Hirin Pror Trai

Seg

The nature of the employment problem or problems alleged was as follows:
Hiring ....

224
Promotion..

230 Training and Apprenticeship

8 Segregated Facilities

34 Benefits

13 Wage Differential

70 Seniority ...

23 Layoff and Recall.

39 Firing

176 State Employment Service - Referral

16 State Employment Service – Testing

1 Union - Referral

27 Union - Membership

71 Union - Apprenticeship

2 Other.

94 Not Specified

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The respondents involved in these matters were as follows:

Employer
Union..
State Employment Service
Private Employment Service
Labor-Management Apprenticeship Training Program
Not Specified

693
255
15
3
0

[ocr errors]

48

These matters were divided by states as follows:
California ...

96

Nebraska ....
Colorado

3 Nevada..
Connecticut

9 New Jersey Delaware

38

6 New Mexico District of Columbia

26 New York. Illinois.

70 Ohio lowa

1 Oregon Indiana.

36 Pennsylvania Kansas

19 Washington Massachusetts.

13 Wisconsin Maryland

101 Wyoming Michigan

26 Minnesota Missouri.

180 Utah

6 119 87

3 93 11 16 3 2 2

« AnteriorContinuar »