« AnteriorContinuar »
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND
Washington, D.C., June 12, 1967.
Welfare Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Department of Justice, and the AFL-CIO have had several discussions regarding the provisions of S. 1308, a bill to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1954. Those discussions led to an agreement on several amendments.
I understand a copy of the bill, with the suggested amendments, has been delivered to your administrative assistant, Mr. Harry Schwartz. This letter is to inform you that with these amendments the legislative proposal has the support of the AFL-CIO. Sincerely yours,
ANDREW J. BIEMILLER,
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD,
Washington, D.C., May 3, 1967. Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK, Chairman, Employment, Manpower, and Poverty Subcommittee, Senate Office
Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN CLARK: We should like to call to the Subcommittee's attention our endorsement of the proposed amendment (S. 1308, known as the Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement Act) to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which would grant to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission enforcement powers similar to those of other federal regulatory agencies.
As an organization that has advocated and worked for full equality of employment opportunity since the days of its founding the Guild views the EEOC's present inability to employ judicially enforceable cease and desist orders, in cases where its efforts at conciliation and persuasion prove unsuccessful in correcting violations of Title VII, as an indication that the EEOC was created as a less than equal regulatory agency to enforce a law aimed at remedying less than equal treatment of a large portion of the nation's citizenry. Second-class status for EEOC has impeded seriously realization of the aims of the 1964 Act, we feel, and aided these in our society bent on frustrating the national policy of equal opportunity set forth in the Act.
We urge the Subcommittee to resist any attempts that might be made to weaken S. 1308, and to report the bill favorably with dispatch.
We should like our endorsement of S. 1308, as introduced by Senators Clark and Javits, to be entered in the record of the Subcommittee's hearings on the bill. Sincerely,
WM. J. FARSON,
Executive Vice President. CHARLES A. PERLIK, Jr.,
GENERAL BOARD OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL CONCERNS,
Washington, D.C., May 10, 1967.
Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CLARK : In connection with Senate Bill 1308, I wish to call to your attention a special resolution adopted by the Board of Christian Social Concerns of The Methodist Church at its annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, October 18-20, 1965.
This resolution calls attention to the lack of enforcement powers granted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
The text of the resolution is contained on the next to the last page of the attached Board publication entitled, “Statements '65."
You will note that the resolution supports, “proper administrative enforce-
GROVER C. BAGBY,
STRENGTHENING FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
The terrible facts of job discrimination against Negro Americans and members of other minority groups are now well known in the United States. Therefore, the General Conference of 1964 has declared “The right to .
... secure employment should be guaranteed to all regardless of race, culture, national origin, social class or religion.”
We note particularly the word "guaranteed” in the foregoing declaration. In a constitutional democracy, such a guarantee comes only through law which is enforceable and enforced.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 calls cautiously and weakly for fair employment practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with securing compliance, has no administrative enforcement powers. This is a grievous omission. The twenty-five states which have already provided administrative enforcement powers in connection with their own fair employment practices legislation have found through experience that court enforcement alone, slow and cumbrous as it must be, is woefully inadequate to meet the need here. Judicial review of administrative enforcement activity protects against administrative abuses, but judicial enforcement alone largely means voluntary compliance or non-enforcement.
We, therefore, call upon Methodist people to support the strengthening of Federal legislation in support of equal employment opportunities for all, by the provision of proper administrative enforcement procedures, subject to judicial review.
We further recommend that the extent of employee coverage under the current legislation (Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964) be broadened significantly.
1964 Discipline, Par. 1820.
NATIONAL CATHOLIC CONFERENCE FOR INTERRACIAL JUSTICE,
Chicago, Ill., June 2, 1967.
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
The National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice wishes to commend you and Senator Javits for the introduction of this bill, and wishes to urge the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States to adopt this bill which would enable the Equal Opportunity Commission to do the job, more effectively, with which it has been charged under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sincerely yours,
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A.,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE,
New York, N.Y., May 1, 1967.
Committee, Washington, D.C.
In this connection I wish to bring to your attention the enclosed resolution on Equal Opportunity in Employment recently adopted by the Department of Social Justice of the National Council of Churcbes.
As you will see, it urges the Congress to enact legislation which will confer on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the power to issue "cease and desist" orders with respect to practices which it finds to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also calls for increased funding of the activities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I will be grateful if you would arrange to hare this resolution entered in the record of your hearings as expressing the position of the Department of Social Justice. Cordially yours,
Rer. SHIRLEY E. GREENE, Director for Church and Economic Life.
RESOLUTION ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE, DIVISION OF CHRISTIAN LIFE AND MISSION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHUBCRES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A.
Whereas, the National Council of Churches has expressed its deep concern about "the prevalence in our time of exploitation and discrimination in respect to employment of certain groups" ;
Whereas, the National Council has strongly supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which among other important provisions prohibits, in Title VII, discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employ. ment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin; and
Whereas, its experience has proved that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires added legal enforcement powers and increased funding if it is to fulfill effectively its mandate to carry out the provisions of Title VII: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Department of Social Justice of the Division of Christian Life and Mission of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. calls upon the Congress of the United States promptly to enact legislation which will confer on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the power to issue "cease and desist" orders with respect to practices which it finds to be in violation of Title VII, and where necessary to bring civil action in the courts to enforce such orders; and be it further
Resolved, That the Department of Social Justice calls upon the Congress to increase the appropriation for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to make possible adequate investigation, conciliation, technical assistance and enforcement activities to the end that equal employment opportunity shall become a reality throughout the nation; and be it further
Resolved, That the Department of Social Justice calls upon the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice, each within its respective sphere of legal responsibility, to pursue vigorously the mandate of Sec. 707 of the Act to end "patterns of discrimination” by employers, labor organizations, or employment agencies.
Adopted : April 14, 1967.
1 "Christian Concern and Responsibility for Economic Life in a Rapidly Changing Technological Society." Statement adopted by the General Board, February 24, 1966.
LEADERSHP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS,
Washington, D.C., May 26, 1967. Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: At the May 4, 1967, hearing on S. 1308, you requested members of the panel who testified to submit their views on S. 1667.
After consultation with Roy Wilkins and Clarence Mitchell, I am submitting our comments on S. 1667 in the attached memorandum. Jack Greenberg, DirectorCounsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, has reviewed and approved the memorandum. Sincerely yours,
JOSEPH L. RAUTI, Jr., Counsel. Attachment.
MEMORANDUM ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY LEGISLATION (S. 1667)
FROM THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS
found to Comme
Pursuant to your suggestion, we are submitting our comments on the bill introduced by Senators Javits, Case and Kuchel (S. 1667) to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967. In so doing, we make no attempt to evaluate it vis-a-vis S. 1038, but reserve our comment for its specific provisions.
Rather than analyze it section-by-section, we feel a more fruitful approach would be to consider the major changes it would make in existing law, as set out in the Congressional Record by Senator Javits, and comment on them oneby-one.
These changes were described by Senator Javits (Congressional Record, May 3, 1967, pp. S. 6226–7), as follows:
It would : "First. Give the EEOC the power to issue cease-and- desist orders which all other regulatory agencies have, but also retains the power of the Attorney General under the existing Title VII to initiate civil suits against patterns or practices of discrimination in employment."
Comment: The grant of cease-and-desist authority to the enforcing agency has been considered an essential ingredient of effective fair employment legislation by all supporters of such legislation since the initiation of the original effort to enact fiar employment laws. Therefore we welcome this proposal without qualification.
We likewise endorse continuation of the authority of the Attorney General to file suits to end patterns and practices of employment discrimination. Since 1964 this authority in the Attorney General has become almost universally accepted as necessary part of any statutory scheme of relief against discrimination.
“Second. Expand the coverage of Title VII to employers and labor unions which have eight or more employees or members."
Comment: We have previously given our support to this proposed change in the law, both by testimony before Congressional committees and otherwise. We reiterate that support at this time.
“Third. Require the EEOC to conduct a continuing survey of apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs and to report quarterly to the Congress its findings.”
Comment: We believe that such an official survey would provide an excellent method of identifying trouble spots in the labor market and evaluating progress made in combatting discrimination in these programs.
"Fourth. Give the EEOC the same investigatory powers which the Federal Trade Commission had under section 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act."
The Commission needs adequate investigatory authority. The incorporation by reference of the powers of the Federal Trade Commission has been a feature of a number of civil rights bills in recent years. We agree that it would meet the definition of "adequate."
"Fifth. Expand the coverage of Title VII to employees of State and local governments, including State employment agencies."
Comment: This is another change we have previously supported and which we are happy to see introduced in the form of specific proposed legislation.
"Sixth. Limit precomplaint investigation and conciliation to not more than 30 days after a charge has been filed with the EEOC. This would prevent dilatory tactics on a respondent's part from prolonging the precomplaint proceedings, and in this field particularly there is a need for rapid relief if it is to be at all effective."
Comment: We would not at this time be prepared to give our support to this provision. The backlog of cases creates a present and real problem to the Commission, even under its time limitation of 60 days. A cut in time to 30 days would only aggravate a bad situation. Perhaps at a later date when the Commission's work load becomes manageable and its procedures more routinized, we would reevaluate this.
"Seventh. Authorize the EEOC to order affirmative action including the establishment of on-the-job training for anyone discriminated against. This is a significant remedy particularly where the defense is that there have been no qualified minority group applicants.”
Comment: This we could give our present and unqualified support. Affirmative action is essential to accomplishing true equality of opportunity.
"Eighth. Authorize the DEOC to order the payment of damages. This is needed particularly where no other relief is available to a particular grievant found to have been discriminated against."
Comment: While we could support the principle of this suggestion, we feel that it might raise issues that could delay or jeopardize passage of the basic legislation. Therefore we would not be inclined to insist on it at this time.
"Ninth. Authorize the EEOC to utilize the services of the Labor Department in conducting investigations, seeking voluntary compliance, conducting hearings, and coordinating training programs. This would help to overcome the serious limitations upon the EEOC's ability to handle its caseload, which has far exceeded expectations, by utilizing particularly the nationwide network of the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division local offices and staff, and the staff of the Manpower Administration."
Comment: We do not believe this would be an advisable practice to adopt.
The Commission needs a well-trained staff of investigators who have a basic commitment to its program. It is not likely to get the type of service it needs by farming out its duties to employees of another agency whose primary interest is something other than the solution of problems of discrimination.
There was testimony before the Subcommittee that where investigators of the Department of Labor have been used by the Commission, a high percentage of their investigations have been unsatisfactory, leading to reinvestigation by the EEOC.
While it may be realistic to believe that getting an adequately budgeted and trained staff for the Commission at the present time may prove difficult, it is equally realistic to conclude that once the Commission surrenders its investigatory authority, it will be difficult to recover it. On balance we believe in the long run it will be better to make the fight for an independent staff for the Commission rather than surrender this important Commission function.
"Tenth. Authorize the EEOC to receive donations of services and funds as so many other Federal agencies are authorized to do. This could be a highly useful source of expertise from the private sector."
Comment: We feel this could be of help to the Commission and support its passage.
"Eleventh. Authorize the EEOC to obtain interlocutory relief, a temporary injunction, or restraining order, in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prior to a final order to avoid dilatory practices or repeated violations of the law or to afford relief where otherwise there would be irreparable injury."
Comment: This principle was embodied in the Hawkins bill (H.R. 10065, 89th Congress) which we supported. We are happy to renew that support at this time.
"Twelfth. Authorize the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order a civil penalty of no more than $5,000 in appropriate cases. The Federal Trade Commission Act provides a similar remedy."
Comment: This provision would add a strong incentive for respondents to obey the orders of the Commission. However, we believe it may also raise problems that could jeopardize action on the bill as a whole.
"Thirteenth. Make judicially reviewable findings of 'no probable cause by the EEOC and require that notice of such findings be given to complainants.”
Comment: We consider judicial review of such findings to be necessary to the protection of complainants' rights. In order to make it more effective, we urge that the Commission be required to give its reasons for the finding and that the Commission's investigative report be made part of the record on review.
"Fourteenth. Make consent agreements enforceable in the courts as EEOC final orders."
Comment: This would be a definite improvement and would fill a gap in existing law.
"Fifteenth. Require complainants' consent to a finding of voluntary compliance prior to a hearing. It is now required only during a hearing."
Comment: This is another improvement we would strongly support.
"Sixteenth. Permit a Commissioner who filed a charge to participate as a witness in the hearing upon it, as is now authorized generally under the Administrative Procedure Act."
Comment: Assuming that this procedure would be acceptable to the members of the Commission, we would support its inclusion as being helpful.