TESTIMONY OF THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS
BEFORE THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
REGARDING “REPOSITIONING FOR NEW REALITIES: SECURING EEOC’S
CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS”
Monday, September 8, 2003
Statement of Wade Henderson, Executive Director
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
1629 K Street, NW 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and offer comments on proposals before
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding its structure and organization. I am
Wade Henderson, Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), a diverse
coalition of more than 180 national organizations representing a broad constituency, including persons of
color, women, children, labor unions, individuals with disabilities, older Americans, major religious
groups, and gays and lesbians. LCCR and its members have a shared commitment to advancing equal
opportunity in employment and ensuring that all Americans are treated fairly in the workplace. We
believe deeply in the EEOC’s mission and the critical role it plays in investigating and challenging
discriminatory employment practices. We are firmly committed to helping to ensure that the Commission
thrives as a vital institution with the tools and resources it needs to accomplish its work in an effective
manner.
I.
Background and Overview
Today’s public meeting comes at a critical juncture in the life and history of the Commission. The EEOC
faces many challenges, all of which have important implications for the structure and organization of the
agency, the ability of claimants to access the Commission’s services, and the overall effectiveness of the
agency’s enforcement work. We recognize that the Commission’s limited resources increasingly must be
stretched to respond effectively to a wide mix of employment discrimination cases with varying levels of
complexity. Even with significant progress over more than three decades, persistent discriminatory
employment practices continue to limit job opportunities for women, people of color, older workers,
people with disabilities, and other employees. The Commission must tackle not only visible practices,
but also subtler forms of discrimination that, although hidden from plain view, continue to deny equal
employment opportunity to far too many.
It is in this context that the Commission is now considering important questions about its structure and
organizational design. Among the proposals under consideration are recommendations issued by the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in February 2003 proposing significant structural
and organizational changes, and detailed comments submitted by numerous stakeholders in response to
the NAPA recommendations. This public meeting provides an important opportunity to put these
comments and recommendations into the broader perspective of the Commission’s goals and objectives,
and chart a direction for the agency that preserves and advances the agency’s essential mission to combat
discriminatory employment practices. I would like to focus my remarks on several specific questions we
understand are now under consideration, as well as some of the overarching principles that we believe
should guide this discussion. Most importantly, we caution against implementing changes without
1
comprehensive analysis of their potential impact, significant outreach to stakeholders, Congressional
oversight, and full opportunity for formal public comment on specific proposals.
II.
Establishing a Framework for Discussion – Guiding Principles for Considering EEOC
Structural and Organizational Challenges
There are several key questions on the table for today’s public meeting: identifying improvements in
EEOC service delivery that are cost effective and promote greater efficiency, evaluating the implications
of changing demographics and population trends, strengthening the Commission’s discrimination
prevention and overall enforcement efforts, enhancing the Commission’s technological capacity, and
exploring how best to maximize the Commission’s limited resources. In addressing these questions, we
believe that the Commission should be guided by several core principles. First, any decision about the
structure or organization of the Commission must be consistent with the EEOC’s primary role – to
enforce employment discrimination laws and help individuals vindicate their rights. We strongly believe
that any changes to the EEOC’s structure or organization must not detract from these fundamental
enforcement responsibilities. Second, it is essential to ensure that all potential claimants have equal
access to EEOC’s services. Any changes embraced by the Commission must not impede the ability of
claimants – particularly those with special barriers such as limited language proficiency, disabilities, or
limited transportation options – to get the services they need. Third, it is critical to ensure public
accountability as the Commission contemplates potential changes. Articulating a clear decisionmaking
process that affords ample opportunity for public comment is a crucial part of garnering support for any
actions the Commission pursues. Fourth, achieving high quality and high performance in all EEOC
services and functions must be a top priority as organizational changes are evaluated. Fifth, the
Commission must maintain a strong institutional presence in different communities throughout the
country to maximize access to EEOC services. Finally, it always is important to focus on identifying new
strategies to detect and remedy discrimination. With these principles in mind, we offer the following
comments.
III.
Improving the Delivery of Services by the EEOC
A. Assessing the Needs of the Community. We believe that the discussion of potential
improvements in the EEOC’s service delivery must start with a thorough assessment of the needs of local
communities. To ensure that such an assessment is comprehensive and accurate, we urge the
Commission to engage in a dialogue with community leaders and local groups in different regions of the
country to identify unique challenges facing their communities. The Leadership Conference appreciates
the opportunity we have had to discuss different issues with Commissioners and staff, and we urge you to
continue these discussions with many different stakeholders. Such consultation is critical to making
informed judgments about how best to serve claimants and communities. It is also important for
members of local communities to hear from you directly and concretely about specific changes that are
being contemplated in different areas of the country to minimize confusion and misinformation. We
believe that this is an important threshold step that must take place before implementing significant
changes.
B. Ensuring Equal Access for all Claimants. One key priority in advancing the Commission’s
work is to ensure that individuals understand their rights and have meaningful access to the Commission’s
technical expertise and investigatory process. Operational or structural changes that make it harder for
claimants to have their complaints investigated or resolved should not move forward. Further, any
changes must take into account the unique challenges of serving different communities, such as
2
communities where there are significant language barriers. It is with these concerns in mind that we have
considered several specific proposals that we understand are under review by the Commission.
1. The National Call Center. One proposal that has received a great deal of attention
involves the creation of a “national call center.” Although the design has not been completely
determined, the call center proposal likely would have all phone calls to the EEOC being routed
to one central location where they would be handled by call center staff or referred to local
offices. In prior comments to the Commission, we raised serious concerns about using a call
center for the intake of claims.1 We believe that, while providing basic information about the
EEOC might lend itself to a generic call center format, the more technical process of receiving
and analyzing legal claims does not. One-on-one meetings often provide the best forum for the
type of nuanced services required in employment discrimination claims; clients need time to fully
explain their complaint and the intake person needs time to adequately assess the complaint. In
contrast, call centers frequently operate with strict time limits, thus staff answering calls might
not be able to delve fully into the intricacies of the complaint. We also raised concerns about
replacing highly qualified personnel with a call center staffed by private contractors with limited
expertise in complex employment discrimination issues. Thus, if claims intake is delegated
exclusively to a call center, we are concerned that time pressures and insufficient technical
expertise will lead to premature dismissals of complaints and discourage many potential
claimants from filing valid charges. We understand that the call center proposal that the
Commission may be considering currently recommends that the call center should not be used for
claims intake. For the reasons outlined above, we agree with this recommendation and urge you
to ensure that claims continue to be handled in the manner they are currently processed. Even
with limiting the call center to providing general information, however, we have reservations
about the logistical challenges involved with ensuring that each call is handled appropriately and
potential claims are referred to the appropriate offices. Thus, rather than undertaking such a
significant change at once, we recommend pursuing a pilot that is both time-limited and smaller
in scope, perhaps involving one region of the country for better analysis.
2. Reconfiguring or Closing Offices. Another issue that has received a great deal of
attention is the potential closure or reconfiguration of EEOC offices. As a general matter, we
support EEOC efforts to explore ways to decrease real estate costs, such as locating offices in
lower-rent areas. In our prior comments, we voiced serious concerns about the potentially
negative impact on claimants’ access to services if local offices are closed and/or services are
significantly reduced. In particular, we opposed – and continue to oppose – the sizable office
restructuring suggested in the NAPA recommendations.2 We believe that any significant
reduction in staff and availability of offices would cause substantial harm to individuals seeking
to have their claims heard fully and fairly. Moreover, eliminating offices, without ample study
and public consultation, could send the wrong message to clients about the EEOC’s commitment
to reach out to underserved communities and reverse much of the progress the EEOC has
achieved in recent years. It is our understanding that the Commission may be examining how
much of a presence it needs in the jurisdictions it currently serves, while evaluating
1
See Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Comments on the National Academy of Public Administration Study,
June 20, 2003.
2
The NAPA report recommended reducing EEOC “brick and mortar” costs by establishing a network of lead
offices and closing and relocating some field offices. National Academy of Public Administration, Report
Summary, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Organizing for the Future at 3 (February 2003) [referenced
herein as NAPA report]. Among the options posed was the option of establishing a network of “lead offices” that
align with the ten federal regions, possibly supplemented by an unnamed number of smaller “intake-only” centers.
See NAPA report, supra, at 3–7. Such a proposal, if adopted, would result in a markedly different structure than the
current 51 EEOC offices currently in place across the country.
3
reconfiguration of offices and potential redeployment of staff. To the extent that wholesale
elimination of numerous offices are not contemplated, that is an important step forward. But
reducing the capacity of individual offices, even if a nominal presence is maintained, ultimately
could have the same effect on a particular community as shutting down an office in its entirety.
Thus, we believe that there are several threshold steps the Commission must take before reaching
conclusions about office reconfiguration. We urge you to articulate the criteria you will use to
determine changes to the structure of EEOC offices, undertake a cost-benefit analysis that
considers the financial and human consequences of potential changes, and develop a concrete
plan to ensure that any changes are well-communicated to members of local communities. We
also believe that public input on proposed changes is a crucial part of ensuring meaningful access
to EEOC services.
3. Teleworking. Another proposal we understand the Commission is examining involves
shifting some complement of EEOC staff into “telework” arrangements. A teleworking structure
would create a network of dispersed staff who work separately from home offices rather than
working collaboratively in regional offices. The question of whether such arrangements will help
or hinder access to EEOC services will depend, in large measure, on the scope of the program
design. We believe, however, that any teleworking program must be piloted in order to fully
evaluate whether it is a worthwhile alternative that continues to serve complainants in the best
way possible.
C. Training. One critical aspect of improving service delivery involves greater investments in
training of EEOC staff. We are well aware that the Commission’s resources are already strained, but
training is crucial to ensuring that EEOC personnel have the information they need to achieve the
agency’s objectives. Further, comprehensive training helps to ensure that potential claimants receive
accurate information about their rights and how to pursue claims. Most importantly, if structural or
organizational changes are being contemplated, the Commission must include sufficient resources for
comprehensive training to ensure that such changes are communicated clearly to all claimants and
stakeholders, and implemented appropriately by staff.
IV.
Responding to Changing Demographics
A. Greater Investments in Outreach. Effective outreach is a critical part of ensuring that
individuals can access the Commission’s services. Changing demographics and shifting population
trends only heighten the need for outreach into local communities. People must be aware of where the
Commission is and the resources it can provide, and must have confidence in its ability to respond
effectively when they seek assistance in vindicating their rights. Any changes in how the Commission
operates should expand and not diminish outreach activities, particularly in underserved communities.
B. Increasing the Commission’s Capacity to Assist Diverse Communities. It is important
that the Commission is well-positioned to meet the needs of the increasingly diverse communities it
serves. Being mindful of its limited resources, we believe the Commission must identify ways to provide
training – such as language classes – for staff so that they are better equipped to assist clients. Partnering
with community groups to educate workers about their legal rights and employers about their legal
obligations is another strategy for ensuring that the Commission is connected with potential claimants.
4
V.
Improving the Technological Capacity of the EEOC
We are supportive of the EEOC’s general efforts to make technology upgrades. However, we do have a
concern about one technology-related proposal – electronic filing. In our prior comments, we pointed out
that enabling clients to file their claims electronically raises a number of legal and technical questions.
First, all claims are supposed to be signed by the charging party. Thus, some provision would be required
to comply with this rule. Second, attempting to condense the current claims filing process into a
mechanized electronic format creates the very same hazards posed by the national call center. An
electronic, automated process, without any guidance from trained personnel, risks jeopardizing the rights
of claimants because it eliminates the “give-and-take” essential to ensuring that claimants understand
their legal options. Asking clients to file claims electronically also assumes that they have access to and
skill with using a computer, which cannot be presumed for all individuals interested in filing a claim. To
the extent the Commission may be considering limiting electronic inquiries to general information and
not claims processing, we believe that such an approach is more sensible.
V.
Conclusion
For over 50 years, the work of the LCCR has reflected our longstanding, unwavering commitment to
ensuring equal employment opportunity and affirming equal justice principles. Our support for the EEOC
and its mission is rooted firmly in this commitment and we believe that the EEOC has a vital role to play
in widening the doors of employment opportunity for all Americans. We also understand the importance
of ensuring efficiency in EEOC’s operations. We believe that the Commission’s efficiency goals, if
pursued in a thoughtful, collaborative manner, need not undermine the rights of claimants or overall
enforcement. We thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s public meeting and we look
forward to working with you on these critical issues.
5