For an employer, employment agency, or labor organization to discriminate against a person who has opposed any practice forbidden under this act; to willfully interfere with the commission or the board of review in the performance of duty under this act; to require, before employment or membership the applicant to furnish information that pertains to his race, color, creed, religion, or national origin; and to publish an advertisement that relates to employment and discloses a preference based on race, color, creed, religion, or national origin; and

For anyone to attempt intentionally to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce another person to engage in any of the practices forbidden by this act.

This act applies to employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies, but does not cover: (1) Employers of fewer than eight persons; (2) employment with an immediate family, and (3) persons employed in domestic service, or (4) religious or fraternal organizations with respect to bona fide qualifications based on religion, or (5) information required for purposes of national security.

The commission consists of nine members, one from each congressional district and one at-large member. The prime responsibility of the commission is to secure compliance with the law relating to discrimination in the opportunity to obtain employment, housing and other real property because of race, color, creed, religion, or national origin. In dealing with specific complaints, a full investigation must be conducted, and it is the commission's function to attempt to resolve the problem presented by conference, conciliation, and persuasion.

Should the commission be unable to resolve a complaint by conciliation the Governor will appoint a three-member board of review, drawn from a panel of citizens already appointed. This board will conduct a public hearing from all parties concerned, and will issue an order based upon its findings. If the order of the board is not complied with, the commission may file an action in the district court to secure compliance. Likewise, if any person wishes to appeal from the order of the board, he may file an action in the district court. After full consideration, the district court shall issue whatever orders may be necessary for enforcement of an order of the board. Violation of such a court order would constitute contempt of court.

The commission also is charged with the responsibility for affirmative action using its powers of education and persuasion to secure compliance with the law.

We have had wide and varied experiences with the law. I think that it can best be shown by (1) some case histories, (2) our program of affirmative action, and (3) a consideration of arguments against such laws and our experience as to these particular concerns. Now first the case histories. The following case histories are merely examples of Minnesota cases:

STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Case No. 3-ER-2, 1956

CASE HISTORIES

In responding to an advertisement for driver-salesman, an applicant was asked on the telephone if he was a Negro. Upon replying affirmatively, he was told that the company did not hire Negroes. Investigation revealed that the statement had been made by the office manager who had never previously encountered any Negro applicants and who did not normally hire applicants for driver-salesman positions or make employment policy. A conference with the president, general manager, and office manager resulted in an agreement to follow a policy of employment on merit and to offer the position originally applied for to the complainant. The complainant did not wish to leave his current job until he had had an opportunity to try out as a route man. Before such a tryout could be arranged, the complainant secured a new job with the Federal Government providing higher pay and greater security and so was no longer interested in the job originally applied for. Since the respondent issued a written statement of a nondiscrimination policy, instructed all employees with personnel responsibility to follow this policy, and offered the complainant the job he had originally applied for, the commission closed the case as having been satisfactorily adjusted.

Case No. 1-EN-10, 1956

The complainant charged that he had been dismissed from his position as a night clerk at a hotel because the manager was prejudiced against people of Polish ancestry. Investigation revealed the complainant had been unable to handle the bookkeeeping work required in the night clerk's position, but had been offered a job as a stationary engineer in another hotel owned by the same management. However, the complainant had refused to accept the latter position. It was further shown that the owner of the hotel is himself of Polish ancestry and numerous other Polish workers have been employed there. The case was dismissed because no discrimination was found.

Case No. 4-ER-13, 1956

A Negro woman who applied for a position as electrical assembler had not been hired although she appeared to have all the qualifications required for the position. Investigation revealed that the company had never employed a Negro on production work and apparently feared that the applicant would not be accepted by fellow employees. After conferences with the commission staff, the respondent agreed to offer the complainant the next position open. The complainant was called in to work shortly thereafter and has since proved to be a very satisfactory employee fully accepted by her fellow workers and supervisors. The commission closed the case as satisfactorily adjusted.

Case No. 4-LR-20, 1957

A Negro employee of a railroad company applied for membership in a labor union representing the employees of his department shortly after he began work for the railroad 4 years ago. The union did not accept his application, saying only that they could not properly represent him. The complainant applied again to the same union last year, and upon being turned down for membership filed a complaint with the commission.

Investigation disclosed that the position of the complainant was one which was not specifically covered by the language of the agreement between the respondent union and the railroad company. However, there was some indication that had the incumbent in the position been white, the union would have asserted jurisdiction over the position at the time it was established. This matter was further complicated by a question of the proper seniority date to be assigned the complainant in the event an agreement was reached with the union to cover the position on which he was working. After several conferences with representatives of the union and the railroad company, the problems of jurisdiction and seniority date were resolved and the union accepted the complainant into a formerly all-white lodge. On the basis of this action, the commission closed this case as satisfactorily adjusted.

Case B, 1958

A newspaper in an out-of-State community ran the following advertisement, "Christian man-Driving instructor-Part time-$4 per hour. Furnish car, state church affiliation-Write box T152." A party living in the town in which the newspaper was published notified a private intergroup relations agency which brought the advertisement to the attention of the commission. The agency inquired whether it was permissible under the law to advertise for a Christian man and to request a person to state church affiliation.

The staff contacted the advertising manager of the paper and pointed out that the advertisement was in violation of the law unless a prior exemption had been granted by the commission. The paper was asked to put the commission in touch with the advertiser so that the staff might confer with him to advise him of the provisions of the law. In addition, the commission suggested that the paper adopt a policy, if they had not already done so, prohibiting the running of employment advertising which discloses preferences, limitations, or specifications as to race, religion, or national origin. Since this advertisement appeared in a city where there is a city commission operating, the chairman of the city commission was informed of the advertisement and asked to contact the advertising manager of the local newspaper. The advertiser was contacted by letter, the matter was explained to him fully and the situation was promptly cleared up.

The newspaper, in a followup letter to the State commission, pointed out that their advertising policy provides that “* * * no racial or religious requirements are permitted, either implied or direct." They thanked the commission for calling this matter to their attention.

Case No. 5-EAR-42, 1958

A Negro applied for admission to a vocational training school offering preparation for placement with airlines. In response, he had received a form letter apparently designed for Negro applicants for stewardesses' positions saying that the school is not "encouraging young colored people to enroll until we can be more certain of their placement with the airlines."

As a result of conferences with the commission staff, the president of the school had agreed to discontinue the use of the form letter, to accept qualified applicants for training without discrimination and to accept and consider the complainant's application.

As part of the application process, the complainant was given a psychological test on which he scored 95 points. The president of the school contended that applicants scoring less than 100 points were not likely to be successful in completing the training course or in securing placement with the airlines. Therefore, the complainant's application was rejected.

Investigation confirmed the fact that a number of students in the school who had scored 95 or less on the test had been unsuccessful in completing their training or in securing placement. However, it also revealed that five applicants who had scores of 95 or less had successfully completed their training and that two of these had been placed in employment with airlines.

When these facts were called to the attention of the president of the school, he agreed to accept the complainant for training and the case was thus satisfactorily resolved.

Case No. 4-ER-110, 1961

The complainant, a Negro male, charged he was refused referral by an employment agency because of his race. Investigation by the commission revealed that the employment agency was willing to refer the man for the job of shipping clerk, but the company placing the job order said it did not feel a Negro would be suitable. A followup interview with the company divulged the owner feared that hiring a Negro would cause trouble with other men in the shipping department. He maintained the company had a nondiscriminatory employment policy, but sensed trouble if a Negro were hired for this particular department.

The staff investigator found that two violations of the law were committed. First, the employment agency should never have mentioned the applicant's race. Second, the employer appears to have practiced discrimination. The commission directed that the staff talk to the employer again and recommend the man he interviewed. If qualified, he should be offered the next job available. Furthermore, the employer should distribute to his employees a statement of the company's nondiscriminatory employment policy.

Before the staff could carry out the interview recommendation, it was determined the applicant had secured another job and was not interested. Thereupon, the staff got the employer to carry out the remainder of the recommendation; namely, the issuance of a statement outlining the company's nondiscriminatory hiring policy. On this basis, the commission closed the case as satisfactorily adjusted.

Case No. 4-ER-50, 1962

This complainant had responded to an ad for airline stewardess in Detroit and was rejected. She was subsequently interviewed at the St. Paul office of this airline and again rejected. She filed a complaint first with the Michigan FEPC and then with the Minnesota FEPC. The Michigan commission asked the Minnesota commission to aid in the investigation in determining whether or not race was a factor in this case. The Minnesota commission conducted an extensive investigation from 1958 to 1961 at which time it recommended that this case be held over until the Michigan commission held its public hearing or otherwise disposed of the case.

The complainant had subsequently taken training and accepted another position in the Chicago office of this company and the airline argued that the company had given her a position for which they felt she was properly qualified and had not discriminated against her because she was a Negro. The Michigan commission, however, insisted that the facts before them indicated that she had been rejected for a stewardess position because of her race and color. A public hearing was scheduled in 1962 where a finding of probable cause was made. The order was made that the complainant should be enrolled in the

next training class for airline stewardesses. This order was complied with and the complainant was subsequently employed as an airline stewardess. The Minnesota commission was concerned with the issue of maintaining its jurisdiction until it was certain that the case had been satisfactorily adjusted, and on September 21, being assured of this, voted to dismiss this case as satisfactorily adjusted.

Case No. 6-ER-134, 1962

A complaint had been filed by a young Negro man who had applied for a position in a department store in a small Minnesota community. He was rejected. The complainant alleged that he was discriminated against because of his race.

The investigation uncovered, through interviewing of the local manager of the department, that this department and some seven others in the State of Minnesota are leased from department stores and managed and owned by a single company. He indicated that the applicant was well qualified for the position but he did not hire Negroes and that it was company policy to not hire Negroes.

A finding of probable cause of discrimination was made by the commission on the basis of this information. Since the local manager indicated he was implementing the company's discriminatory policy, the conciliation proceeded with the owner of the chain of stores leasing departments throughout the State.

The conciliation revealed that the local manager had been in error in his interpretation of company policy and, after discussion with the commission staff, the nondiscriminatory policy of the company was interpreted to each of the local managers and a position was offered to the young man who had brought this complaint.

Case No. 3-ERE-132, 1962

This complainant charged that she had been dismissed from a part-time position because of her religion. She indicated that she was dismissed immediately after asking for two Jewish holidays and felt that this was the first time the staff may have been aware that she was Jewish.

The investigation of this case elicited from the supervisory persons an explicit and detailed explanation of the ways in which this employee adjudged did not meet the requirements of this place of employment. These evaluations were based upon acceptable professional qualifications by those persons who were required to make these decisions and the commission therefore found no probable cause of discrimination existed to allege that discrimination had been a factor in her dismissal.

In our particular experience with the law, we find that generally the complaints were more in number during the first 3 years, and then began to diminish. We now find that the complaints are coming in at a faster clip than they have in the past 3 years. From 1955 through 1962 the commission handled 205 cases. In the first 6 months of 1963, we have as many complaints as we had in the entire year of 1962. We are sure that this is directly connected with the movement for equality throughout our Nation. Incidentally, we not only find that more complaints are coming to our office, but the complainant is more intent, more determined, and unrelenting in his quest for equal opportunity. But we are glad that the people in Minnesota who feel discriminated against are using the legal channels which are at their avail. This, I think, is and can be the key to progress on a national basis. There must be some effective legal channels through which a person who has been discriminated against can bring his grievance.

I might mention that these figures are exclusive of the cases and complaints in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth, although we have jurisdiction in these communities. By and large, we have limited our action to the suburban and rural areas of the State. I might also point out that there are several reasons why more complaints may not have been brought to the commission in the past: (1) Many citizens who would fall into the category of those who might be the most discriminated against, that is, the unskilled or relatively unlettered job applicant, many times are in awe of governmental agencies; (2) many of these people have a fear and distrust of governmental agencies in dealing with their personal problems; (3) many people feel that governmental d tape coupled with the possibility of a negative conclusion might not be worth

the time; (4) some persons have gotten decisions that they are not satisfied with, and it seems that the negative decisions reach the ears of the community much more quickly than do the positive ones; (5) the nonwhite population in Minnesota is 42,261 compared to the total number of 3,413,864 citizens in the State, so this also contributes to the small number of possible chances for discriminatory acts. The citizens of Minnesota are proud that they have begun to try to eliminate discrimination before the problem gets insurmountable.

In addition to our administative and enforcement program, the commission is also charged with the responsibility for affirmative action. This affirmative action takes place in several ways. It may mean a speech to a group of private citizens. It might mean a television or radio presentation. It might mean an interview with the newspapers. It also could mean public or private meetings with various community, governmental, religious organizations, in an effort to create a positive climate for equal employment opportunity. Some of the specific things that we have been able to do in our affirmative action program includes cooperating with the local fair employment practices commissions at meetings with private employment agencies to make clear the provisions of the fair employment practices laws, also urging them and helping them come to positive and affirmative action in developing procedures and policies to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of the fair employment practices laws. Several meetings were held with the U.S. Employment Security Office and the U.S. post office, giving attention to factors involved in the initial hiring, promotional opportunities, procedures of evaluation in the role of civil service rules and regulations, with emphasis on the affirmative approach which might point the way in other facets of Federal and State hiring and upgrading practices.

We have also met with administrative personnel of our colleges and universities and pointed out several ways in which recruiting could be done to insure a well-rounded staff racially and religiously at all levels in the college and university setting. Our commission continues to confer with the mayors of the various communities throughout the State.

Also, the commission consults and works with local communities on human relations. This has strengthened the effectiveness of the department throughout the State. Through volunteer efforts there has developed an impressive amount of citizens' support. In Minnesota, we have 14 citizens' committees. Many of these communities have few minority group persons. These committees serve as advisory bodies to the commission. Many times, because of the presence of interested leading citizens of local communities, problems can be worked out without the necessity of the State commission intervening. Again, Minnesotans are attempting to use preventive measures to minimize the need for remedial measures.

While we have tried to work in a positive sense, we also know that during any effort to pass fair employment legislation there are always questions and concerns about the validity and advisability of fair employment practices legislation. Because of our experience, we are now able to answer some of the more prominent questions:

1. Fair employment practice commissions harass employers and stir up false charges of discrimination.—Because the laws have conciliation provisions in them, usually both parties involved agree to the great value in having an impartial agency investigate complaints. Thus the commissions have operated to ease tensions and to build improved relations between the members of different racial, religious, and nationality groups.

Those employers having a bona fide equal opportunity policy which they have put into practice need not fear.

2. The objectives of the legislation can be better achieved by setting up educational agencies without enforcement powers.-The enforcement provisions are essential to persuade employers and union officials to give serious attention to the need for changing discriminatory policies. The experience of the professional organizations working on problems of discrimination in employment has been that a significant proportion of employers and union leaders simply refuse to give serious consideration to changing discriminatory employment or membership policies in the absence of legislation with enforcement powers. However, when they do direct their attention to this problem, as a result of the passage of legislation and the work of the commissions, they become convinced that nondiscrimination is sound personnel practice and sound union policy.