Oversight Hearing on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held in Washington, DC, March 24, 1994, 4. sējumsU.S. Government Printing Office, 1994 - 183 lappuses Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. |
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
administrative Aerospace affidavit African Americans agency agreement allegations Argonne asked attorney Augustus Hawkins Blacks and Hispanics California Institute CalTech Caltech-JPL Chairman OWENS Charging Party Civil Rights complaint compliance review CONGRE CONGRESS THE LIBRARY copy counsel determination Director District Division of Human documents DOE-OCR Education EEO-1 reports EEOC charge EEOC investigator EEOC office EEOC's employer employment discrimination Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement Equal Employment Opportunity Ercolano EVE award female file a charge forensics team going GOODSTEIN hearing hired Hispanic Human Rights individual interview issue Jakobson Jersey Joann KOLTERMAN lawsuit lawyer letter LIBRARY CONGRESS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS litigation Lonnie Bedell Male Miss Epperson Miss Santiago Miss Swanson Moorhead State University NELA Newark NLRB OFCCP ongoing retaliation OUTTEN percent qualified regarding requested response retaliation charge SDHR sexual harassment statement supervisor Title IX Title VII told tournament Wal-Mart witnesses Yellow Freight System York
Populāri fragmenti
92. lappuse - Senate or the Committee on Education and Labor of the United States House of Representatives, or both.
134. lappuse - In the early 1970s detailed regulations were issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the Department of Labor, the agency that enforces Executive Order No.
100. lappuse - It is readily apparent that the steady increase of new cases each year and the added responsibilities of enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, without corresponding increases in resources, have clearly taken their toll on the Commission.
107. lappuse - The Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL) of the California Institute of Technology (CIT) was given the management responsibility for both programs by NASA.
6. lappuse - Equal Employment Opportunity: EEOC and State Agencies Did Not Fully Investigate Discrimination Charges, October 1988.
92. lappuse - ... represent employees in work related matters. As a group, NELA attorneys have represented hundreds of thousands of individuals seeking equal job opportunities. In fact, as noted herein, it is the private sector and NELA attorneys rather than the EEOC who have accounted for approximately 94 percent of the civil rights litigation in the Federal court system. NELA is one of a limited number of organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of all employees who rely on the Equal Employment...
100. lappuse - ... the lack of interest in following up on the legitimate investi Admittedly, the EEOC resolves many of its cases for administrative reasons prior to the determination process. However, in most of these resolutions, the charging party receives minimal, if any, relief. Many of the withdrawals or dismissals are because the charging party can no longer be located, the employer has filed for bankruptcy or the charging party has given up the EEOC process in frustration and requested his or her Notice...
101. lappuse - ... unchanged in years 1987 through 1991. And, as previously noted, in only slightly more than 1 percent of its charges, did the EEOC engage in any litigation whatsoever on behalf of employment discrimination victims. By its apparent insistence on impossibly high standards of proof as its own personal litigation standard, rather than reliance on the traditional shifting burdens of proof and persuasion established by statute and Supreme Court precedent, the EEOC has effectively abandoned the majority...
103. lappuse - reasonable cause" to believe a violation had occurred. The EEOC should issue regulatory guidelines articulating that standard and holding that Letters of Determination are not to be considered "evidence" on the merits and are not to be introduced in a private right of action as the limited relevance and probative value of such Determinations are far outweighed by the prejudicial impact on the charging party's case. Further, such...
104. lappuse - Further, such determinations open the door to too many collateral issues eg what type of investigation did the EEOC do, how many witnesses did the EEOC talk to etc.? They simply have no place in a private cause of action and the EEOC should take a leadership position on this issue. 19. Disclaimer Language on Letters of Determination. Further, such Letters of Determination should indicate in bold letters language to this effect: CAUTION: THIS IS NOT A FINAL DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS OF YOUR...