agreement was transmitted to Washington for review and recommendations and then to the Commissioners for final approval. If, on the other hand, the pre-decision settlement failed, the case was dispatched to Washington for Where there was a "cause finding,"

a formal decision by the Commission.

conciliation was attempted and if unsuccessful the charging party was notified of his right to sue for relief in federal court. In some cases the Department of Justice was notified for possible legal action by the Attorney General.

The focus of the Commission's compliance effort shifted over time. Through 1967 the Commission usually sought relief for the charging party solely and did not address itself to those institutional arrangements controlled by the respondent which led to and perpetuated employment discrimination, not only against the charging party, but against the class of persons to which the charging party belonged. Consequently, where reasonable cause was found to believe a respondent refused to hire a charging party because of his race, the conciliation agreement probably included complaint-oriented relief for the charging party (immediate employment, appropriate back pay, and retroactive seniority and fringe benefits) but disregarded class-oriented relief dealing with the elimination of systemic factors contributing to the specific act of respondent discrimination (e.g., inappropriate use of tests or other job selection procedures).

10/

By 1968, the Commission recognized that compliance could not be achieved effectively through the one-on-one, complaint-oriented approach. Specific acts of overt employment discrimination, against which one-on-one agreements were directed, were greatly overshadowed by systemic forms of discrimination that extended to seniority provisions, inadequate training

and job information, methods of compensation and terms of employment, and

job classification.

The

As a result, the Commission's emphasis in conciliation shifted to include not only relief to the charging party but removal of those conditions underpining the specific act of discrimination. benefits of this, of course, extended beyond the charging party to the class of persons affected by the policy in question.

While the compliance process itself underwent modification, the Commission also sought to coordinate its compliance activities more effectively with those of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC). The jurisdiction of the EEOC and OFCC overlap in those instances. where the respondent is a federal contractor. Prior to 1970, coordination

of the agencies' compliance activities was largely non-existent or took place on an informal basis, which frequently resulted in respondents charging harassment and duplication of effort. Consequently, the two agencies took steps to alter this, achieving a Memorandum of Understanding

in May of 1970.11/ Under the Memorandum all individual complaints

involving federal contractors were to be initially investigated by the EEOC, and where the EEOC found cause, the OFCC might enter into proceedings against that contractor unless a conciliation agreement was achieved. agencies were also to share investigation results.

Both

Administration and development of the compliance process, like that

of most new institutions, has been marked by change and adjustment to new realities. As suggested in the following chapters, these changes and adjustments, and the uncertainties brought about by them, have played a considerable role in determining the outcome of conciliation and the

effectiveness of the compliance process.

Operation of Compliance

Under Title VII a charge of discrimination may be filed either by

or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved or by a member of the 12/

Commission.

Steps are taken when a charge is filed to determine if the charge falls within the jurisdiction of the EEOC. Excepting 1966, the number of charges within the Commission's jurisdiction has grown in both absolute and relative terms each year since the Commission's establishment (see Table 2-4). This reflects in some measure the increased sophistication of those filing charges, and a greater awareness of the law's

existence.

The expanded role of state and local FEP commissions is shown. (Table 2-4) by the growing number of charges received by the Commission which were deferred to state and local agencies: 1 out of 5 charges accepted in 1970 was deferred as compared with 1 out of 10 in 1966. Further, though the number of charges for which no probable EEOC jurisdiction exists has declined, the number recommended for investigation by the Commission has increased in each fiscal period since 1966. Fiftysix percent of the 20,122 charges received in 1970 were recommended for investigation compared with only 37 percent in 1967.

In each fiscal

The growing number of charges recommended for investigation has placed an increasing burden on resources of the Commission. period the number of backlog cases in investigation has increased (see Table 2-5). When the Commission sought in fiscal 1970 to decrease the backlog of charges pending conciliation and shifted its staff from investigations to conciliation, the backlog of investigation work doubled. In fact only 31 percent of the charges pending investigation in this period were actually investigated in contrast to 60 percent in fiscal 1969.

2

Excludes 658 charges closed or withdrawn pending investigation.

Source: U.S. EEOC Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Annual Report.

16