```

[Senate Hearing 114-165]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        S. Hrg. 114-165
 
  OVERSIGHT OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION: EXAMINING 
               EEOC'S ENFORCEMENT AND LITIGATION PROGRAMS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
                          LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   ON

  EXAMINING THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, FOCUSING ON 
          EXAMINING EEOC'S ENFORCEMENT AND LITIGATION PROGRAMS

                               __________

                              MAY 19, 2015

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
 
 
 
 
 
 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
      
      
                                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
        94-782 PDF                        WASHINGTON : 2016     
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
            Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
     Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
      
      
      

          COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                  LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming               PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina           BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia                BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                    ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska                 MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
MARK KIRK, Illinois                    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina              TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                   CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas                    ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana

                                     
                                     
                             
                                     
                                     
                                       

               David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director

                  Evan Schatz, Democrat Staff Director

              John Righter, Democrat Deputy Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  

                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________

                               STATEMENTS

                         TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015

                                                                   Page

                           Committee Members

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Tennessee, opening statement...................................     1
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington..     3
Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.....    25
Scott, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina.    27
Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Connecticut....................................................    29
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas.......    30
Warren, Hon. a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts......    32

                               Witnesses

Yang, Jenny R., Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
  Washington, DC.................................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Lopez, P. David, General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity 
  Commission, Arlington, VA......................................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    17

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
    The National Restaurant Association..........................    38
    Letter from the Healthcare Leadership Council................    39
    Response by Jenny Yang to questions of Senator:
        Senator Alexander........................................    40
        Senator Paul.............................................    63
        Senator Collins..........................................    64
        Senator Roberts..........................................    64
    Response by P. David Lopez to questions of Senator:
        Senator Alexander........................................    65
        Senator Paul.............................................    68
        Senator Collins..........................................    68
        Senator Roberts..........................................    69

                                 (iii)

  

  OVERSIGHT OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION: EXAMINING 
               EEOC'S ENFORCEMENT AND LITIGATION PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              

                         TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
       Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Alexander, Roberts, Scott, Murray, 
Franken, Murphy, and Warren.

                 Opening Statement of Senator Alexander

    The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. This morning, 
we're holding a hearing on Oversight of the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission: Examining EEOC's Enforcement and 
Litigation Programs. Senator Murray and I will each have an 
opening statement. We'll introduce our panel. After our 
witnesses' testimony, Senators will have 5 minutes of 
questions.
    I will say to Senator Murray that I hope she will indulge 
me. My statement is a little long. I'm going to abbreviate it 
and I'll try not to abuse the privilege of the chair by taking 
too long.
    Exactly 6 months ago, I sat in the ranking member's chair 
and I voted against Mr. Lopez's nomination as the EEOC General 
Counsel. I said then that I believed he had placed too much 
emphasis on litigating high-profile lawsuits at a time when 
there were more than 70,000 complaints of workplace 
discrimination that had not been investigated.
    Since then, the lawsuits have continued, the agency has 
suffered embarrassing rebukes from the courts, and the backlog 
has grown. We're here today to find out why such an important 
agency with such a critical task has gotten so far afield of 
its mission.
    I know our country's history. I stood on the Mall in 1963 
when Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his ``I Have a Dream'' 
speech. My friend, George Haley, died last week. He was 
admitted to the University of Arkansas Law School in the 1950s 
and had to sit in a room by himself because he was an African-
American.
    I've tried in my public and private life to support equal 
rights. But what's going on in the EEOC, in my view, is not 
consistent with the noble actions that I just described.
    My four chief concerns--and I'll hit them briefly--No. 1, 
the commission is pursuing investigations that may not involve 
a complaint, while the backlog of complaints has grown to over 
75,000. No. 2, the commission is losing lawsuits and receiving 
embarrassing rebukes from the courts, wasting taxpayer dollars.
    No. 3, instead of following the law, the EEOC is focused 
on, ``developing the law,'' and creating regulatory guidance 
without any notice or comment.
    And No. 4, there's not much about the Affordable Care Act 
that this committee and the President agree on. But one thing 
was employee wellness programs, and the EEOC created a conflict 
with the committee, with the President, with three departments 
of the Obama administration and their regulations, and now has 
offered a rule to try to solve the problem that exceeds the 
EEOC's authority, in my judgment, and doesn't solve the problem 
at all.
    First, investigations without a complaint. In my view, the 
EEOC is spending too much time initiating lawsuits from 
investigations which began without an individual filing a 
complaint and with a clear intention by the agency to achieve a 
maximum amount of publicity. For example, EEOC is investigating 
at least three accounting firms, none of which was there a 
complaint, but rather where partners have voluntarily adopted a 
mandatory retirement age; or the Texas Roadhouse restaurant 
chain, where you're investigating age discrimination because 
the hosts, bartenders, and servers seem too young.
    There were apparently no complaints when it started. To 
make sure you have complaints, the agency is apparently 
advertising on Craigslist to churn up more complaints. At the 
same time, the number of backlogged--the number of complaints 
of people actually aggrieved and have filed with your agency 
has increased to 75,658.
    Court rebukes. Six months ago at our hearing, I read some 
embarrassing words from a unanimous three-judge panel on the 
6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said of an EEOC case,

          ``EEOC brought this case on the basis of a homemade 
        methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular 
        expertise to craft it, administered by persons with no 
        particular expertise to administer it, tested by no 
        one, and accepted only by the witness himself.''

    The commission continued to appeal another case using the 
same faulty witness and lost that case too, causing a unanimous 
three-judge panel on the 4th Circuit to say that there were an 
alarming number of errors. In a concurring opinion, one of the 
judges said, ``The commission's conduct in this case suggests 
that its exercise of vigilance has been lacking.''
    Since 2011, EEOC has been ordered to pay attorney's fees in 
11 different cases, the most recent one being in Washington 
State where a judge in a Federal district court ruled that the 
EEOC had demanded more than $25 million from two defendants, 
and the court found it had no valid basis for doing so. This is 
what the court said:

          ``The EEOC failed to conduct an adequate 
        investigation, pursued a frivolous theory of joint-
        employer liability, sought frivolous remedies, and 
        disregarded the need to have a factual basis to assert 
        a plausible basis for relief under title VII.''

    And there are other examples.
    Respect for the rule of law. On top of all this, I am 
concerned that the commission and Mr. Lopez seem to be 
inventing ways to avoid following the law, taking an, 
``entrepreneurial approach,'' to litigation and talking about 
novel issues. Then there's the matter of guidance. In the past 
2\1/2\ years, twice the commission has set a national workplace 
discrimination policy through guidance, and then filed lawsuits 
based on the guidance as if they, the commission, could make 
the law.
    And, finally, the employee wellness proposed rule. This 
committee, Congress, and the President specifically authorized 
employers to reward employees for making healthy lifestyle 
choices. Three departments of the Obama administration issued 
regulations consistent with the law. Yet, in 2014, EEOC decided 
to sue employers for following the law and following those 
regulations and offering those plans. Even the White House 
press secretary expressed some concern about this. Our 
committee expressed concern about this.
    In April, EEOC offered a proposed rule on employer wellness 
programs. But the rule ignores the law and the administration's 
regulations. We can talk more about that.
    So this is not the first time these issues have come up. I 
issued a report last fall detailing many of these problems. We 
held a bipartisan hearing earlier this year. The White House 
press secretary, as I said, has expressed some concern. But no 
one seems to be listening. Here we are still about to discuss 
the fact that EEOC is still spending its time looking for 
investigations where there are no complaints, while a backlog 
of complaints grows to over 75,000; still receiving 
embarrassing rebukes from the court; still experimenting with 
developing the law and guidance free from public comment; and 
still ignoring the intentions of Congress and the President in 
writing into Federal law a system for encouraging businesses to 
offer employee wellness programs.
    All of these issues are of concern to me, and I look 
forward to hearing from the EEOC's General Counsel and chair 
regarding how they are addressing them.
    The Chairman. Senator Murray.

                  Opening Statement of Senator Murray

    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 
to thank our witnesses, Chair Jenny Yang and General Counsel 
David Lopez, for taking the time to be here today.
    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does important 
work to protect workers and to prevent discrimination in the 
workplace. I appreciate the hard work and dedication the agency 
and the Commission bring to that cause. This hearing gives us 
an opportunity to remember the critically important role the 
EEOC plays in eliminating discrimination in workplaces across 
the country.
    As you have heard me say, I believe that real, long-term 
economic growth is built from the middle out, not the top down. 
And our government, economy, and workplaces should work for all 
families, not just the wealthiest few. But we can't truly 
achieve those goals if some individuals in our country face 
discrimination in the workplace or aren't considered for jobs 
because of who they are.
    Race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual 
orientation, and disability have nothing to do with a 
person'sability and potential in the workplace. But we can't 
back up that basic belief and put it into practice without the 
EEOC, which is charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
    The EEOC will celebrate its 50th anniversary this year. 
Before 1965, it was legally permissible for a business to fire 
someone for their religious beliefs. Employers could harass 
employees based on the color of their skin. Job applicants 
could be disqualified in the application process because of 
where they came from.
    In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, and just a 
year later, the EEOC opened its doors to help ensure workers 
had the right to equality and opportunity. For five decades, 
the Commission has made great strides in creating a more fair 
and more just society.
    12In fact, the EEOC's success rate in litigating 
discrimination cases has consistently topped 90 percent, 
including more than 93 percent in this past fiscal year. That 
success comes despite years of budget cuts and belt tightening 
that has whittled the agency's workforce by more than 700 full-
time employees since 1995. And it's one more reason why we have 
got to build on the bipartisan budget deal to roll back the 
automatic cuts so we can restore investments that expand 
opportunities for all families.
    I believe it is time for Congress to step up and give the 
EEOC the resources it needs to fight discrimination in our 
Nation's workplaces. That would help the EEOC reduce its severe 
backlog.
    EEOC demonstrated in 2011 and 2012 that with just a small 
increase in resources, they could make steady reductions in the 
backlog. But sequestration and shutdowns have made that work 
more difficult. That is truly concerning. In too many cases, 
justice delayed is justice denied. So I look forward to hearing 
from our witnesses today on what the agency is doing to reduce 
its backlog of claims.
    This year, by the way, we are also celebrating the 25th 
anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA and 
the amendments that followed prohibited discrimination on the 
basis of disability. But we still need to make progress to 
promote equality of opportunity in the workplace for 
individuals with disabilities. And we need to ensure that all 
employers recognize these important protections, for example, 
in workplace wellness programs.
    Congress also needs to update our anti-discrimination laws 
to protect people from discrimination based on their sexual 
orientation or gender identity. We need stronger LGBT anti-
discrimination laws in employment, education, housing, credit, 
and in public places. On that note, I hope that this committee 
can continue its bipartisan efforts to address these critical 
issues.
    Freedom from discrimination is a requirement for making 
sure all Americans have the opportunity to work hard and 
succeed. I want to commend the EEOC on the important work it 
does to make sure our government, economy, and workplaces are 
free from discrimination.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
    I'd like to welcome our two witnesses today. Jenny Yang 
serves as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 
Prior to joining the EEOC in April 2013, she was a partner in a 
law firm. She previously worked at the Department of Justice in 
the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division.
    David Lopez currently serves as General Counsel of the 
EEOC. Prior to becoming general counsel in 2010, Mr. Lopez 
served in various roles in the EEOC, including senior trial 
attorney, and also special assistant to then-EEOC Chair Gilbert 
Casellas.
    We look forward to the conversation today and ask that each 
of you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes.
    Ms. Yang, welcome.

STATEMENT OF JENNY R. YANG, CHAIR, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 
                   COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Yang. Good morning, Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member 
Murray, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you 
for inviting me to testify today with our General Counsel, 
David Lopez.
    As chair of the EEOC, it has been a privilege to work with 
over 2,000 dedicated colleagues across the country to fulfill 
our singular mission to stop and remedy discrimination in the 
workplace. As Senator Murray noted, this July marks two 
historic milestones, our 50th anniversary as an agency and the 
25th anniversary of the ADA.
    We are assessing where we are today as well as charting our 
path forward to make the promise of our civil rights laws a 
reality for all. Over the past 50 years, our Nation has made 
great strides toward building more inclusive workplaces. Yet 
across the country, we continue to see discrimination in many 
forms, and I will highlight just a few.
    Just last month, the Commission held a meeting in Miami 
where we heard testimony on the persistent challenge of race 
and ethnicity discrimination in the 21st century workplace. 
Also last month, we settled claims that a drilling company 
subjected African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and 
Asian Americans to racial and ethnic slurs, physical 
harassment, and exclusion from higher paying jobs. We obtained 
$14.5 million for over 1,000 workers, as well as important 
changes to the employment practices going forward.
    We have represented many women who are paid less than men 
even when they are doing the same job and are equally if not 
more qualified. In addition, in 70 percent of the pregnancy 
charges that are filed with our agency, women say that they 
were fired because they are pregnant.
    For example, we recently resolved a case on behalf of a 
woman who had a miscarriage. She requested 5 days off to obtain 
medical treatment, and she was fired for taking that time.
    We continue to see harassment in many forms, including 
sexual harassment and assault, which is particularly endemic 
for farm worker women. Often, EEOC has been the last hope as 
criminal prosecutions are rare. And despite a generation of 
young people who have grown up with the ADA, many qualified 
people still today can't find a job or advance. So we know that 
our work is not done.
    Our agency is helping employers to build stronger and more 
productive workplaces through a commitment to equality. I truly 
believe that most employers want to comply with the law. 
Providing clear guidance and investing in outreach and 
education are the best ways to prevent discrimination.
    We appreciate the need to ensure coordination of our policy 
guidance and our enforcement efforts to provide a clear and 
consistent agency position. On April 20th, as Senator Alexander 
noted, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 
addresses the ADA's application to employer wellness programs 
to provide more certainty on the interaction of our Federal 
laws. We understand the importance of issuing an NPRM on GINA 
and wellness programs, which we are targeting for July.
    It is a top priority of mine to better serve the public, 
including by more effectively managing the pending inventory of 
charges. In particular, we are investing in two areas: hiring 
and training of frontline staff to rebuild capacity after years 
of hiring freezes and efficient case management systems. We are 
also strongly committed to early resolution of charges. The 
overwhelming majority of our work is accomplished through 
voluntary resolutions, through mediation, settlement, and 
conciliation.
    Litigation is truly a last resort. For every lawsuit we 
file, we voluntarily resolve over 100 charges without filing 
suit. Our litigation program has been highly effective with a 
successful resolution rate consistently over 90 percent. Where 
we have faced losses, we have implemented lessons learned 
throughout the agency.
    The Supreme Court's recent decision in Mach Mining is a 
positive step forward for all parties. The decision provides 
needed clarity on the standards for judicial review of our 
conciliation efforts.
    The agency has taken our responsibility to conciliate 
seriously, and we will continue to do so. Over the past 3 
years, our success in resolving charges through conciliation 
has averaged nearly 40 percent. To continue this progress, we 
will be providing additional training to our investigators to 
ensure they have the highest conciliation skills.
    Ultimately, our goal is to open doors to opportunity for 
all. To address some of our most stubborn workplace challenges, 
we are building active partnerships to develop innovative 
solutions. One example is our recently launched Select Task 
Force on Harassment led by Commissioners Lipnic and Feldblum, 
where we're working with our stakeholders to identify 
underlying problems to workplace harassment.
    Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Yang follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Jenny R. Yang
    Good afternoon Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and 
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to 
testify today on behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(``the Commission'' or ``EEOC'').
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the 
work and strategic priorities of the agency. It has been a privilege to 
serve as chair of the EEOC since September 2014 and as a member of the 
Commission since May 2013. As you know, the EEOC is a five-member bi-
partisan commission responsible for enforcing our Nation's laws against 
workplace discrimination. As of January, we have had a full complement 
of commissioners: Commissioners Constance S. Barker, Chai R. Feldblum, 
Victoria A. Lipnic, and Charlotte A. Burrows. The agency's General 
Counsel, P. David Lopez, has authority over the conduct of the agency's 
litigation, and I am pleased to be here with him providing testimony 
today.
    I thank the members of this committee for your support for the 
agency. Since joining the Commission, and particularly in my role as 
Chair, I have seen the value of open lines of communication between 
EEOC and Congress. A steady, two-way flow of information keeps you 
abreast of the agency's efforts and objectives, while keeping us aware 
of matters on the minds of your constituents and ours. Today's 
discussion adds to that helpful exchange of information. I look forward 
to our continued work with this committee and others in Congress over 
the course of my tenure.
    Over the years, EEOC has made critical progress in advancing equal 
opportunity for workers, yet we have also faced challenges. The 
Commission, our General Counsel, and the agency's more than 2,000 
dedicated employees take very seriously our duty to responsibly and 
efficiently discharge the work Congress has entrusted to us. As such, 
we are continually developing ways to improve our service to the 
public. I look forward to highlighting some of those initiatives today.
                          historic milestones
    This July marks two historic milestones for EEOC. On July 2, we 
will celebrate EEOC's 50th anniversary, and on July 26, we will 
commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
(ADA). For our agency, these occasions present a time for reflection 
and recommitment to expanding opportunity in the American workplace.
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (title VII) created EEOC 
to enforce protections against employment discrimination on the basis 
of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. We opened our doors 
on July 2, 1965, a year to the day after the Civil Rights Act was 
signed. It was projected in our first year that EEOC would receive 
approximately 2,000 charges of discrimination. In reality, EEOC 
received nearly 9,000 charges.
    In the 50 years since, the agency's responsibilities and workload 
have expanded exponentially. Today, we receive nearly 10 times as many 
charges a year as we did in 1965. In addition, Congress has vested EEOC 
with responsibility to enforce the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Section 501 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles I and V of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and Title II of the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA).
        ensuring equal opportunity in the 21st century workforce
    The Nation has made great strides toward equal employment 
opportunity for all. Never before in our Nation's history has the 
American workplace been more inclusive than it is today. EEOC has been 
a critical part of that progress, creating real and meaningful 
opportunities for people of all backgrounds. Through 53 field offices 
around the country, we help employees and employers in understanding 
our civil rights laws. We initiate early and informal resolution of 
employment disputes and work with employers to improve their policies 
to prevent discrimination from recurring. We use litigation as a last 
resort to ensure accountability when violations do occur, and we have 
done so effectively. EEOC has obtained favorable results in 93 percent 
of the cases resolved during fiscal year 2014, and over the past 5 
years we have achieved, on average, favorable results in 91 percent of 
our case resolutions.
    Yet, despite significant progress, EEOC's work is unfinished. 
Notwithstanding the diligent efforts of many employers and the work of 
EEOC, across the country we continue to see discrimination--in both 
overt and subtle forms--based on race, national origin, sex, religion, 
age, disability, and genetic information. What's more, individuals who 
come forward to raise concerns of unequal treatment frequently face 
retaliation.
    Highlighted below are some examples of the ways in which we see 
discrimination manifest itself today, and the strategies that EEOC is 
employing to prevent, stop, and remedy discrimination. The ongoing 
challenge of combating employment discrimination in all its forms is 
what makes EEOC's work as critical today as it was in 1965.
Fulfilling the Promise of the ADA for People With Disabilities
    As we approach the 25th Anniversary of the ADA, today's young 
people with disabilities, sometimes known as--the ``ADA generation''--
have increased access to education, employment, and full participation 
in American society. However, even with notable advancements to make 
our communities more accessible, much remains to be done to fulfill the 
promise of the ADA in the workplace. Over the past 4 years, 
approximately 35 percent of the suits that EEOC filed on the merits 
included allegations of discrimination under the ADA. In the last 
fiscal year alone, 30 percent of all charges of discrimination filed 
with the EEOC alleged disability discrimination. During that period, 
EEOC staff worked with more than 4,800 employers to reach voluntary 
resolutions of ADA charges through settlements and conciliation 
agreements, obtaining more than $95 million for workers with 
disabilities while helping to establish workplace practices that enable 
people with disabilities to succeed at work.
    EEOC's litigation on behalf of people with disabilities has 
involved workers in all segments and sectors of the workforce 
experiencing discrimination ranging from failure to provide reasonable 
accommodations and asking prohibited disability-related questions of 
applicants and employees, to refusing to hire qualified applicants 
based on stereotypes, to discharging qualified workers on the basis of 
disability. In one striking example from September 2014, the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a jury's liability verdict in 
EEOC v. Hill Country Farms, Inc., d/b/a Henry's Turkey's Servs, a 
lawsuit filed on behalf of 32 workers with intellectual disabilities. 
EEOC presented evidence that for years the employer subjected the 
workers to abusive verbal and physical harassment, restricted their 
freedom of movement, required them to live in sub-standard conditions, 
and failed to provide adequate medical care when needed. The agency won 
the largest verdict in its history on behalf of these workers at $240 
million, although this was later reduced to conform to statutory caps.
    In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 
of Michigan, in EEOC v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc., entered a judgment 
against the employer. EEOC alleged that the employer's medical 
clearance policy violated the ADA by requiring all drivers to notify 
the company of any contact with a medical professional, including for a 
routine physical, and then the company terminated employees based on 
the overly broad medical inquiries. The judgment required the employer 
to pay nearly half a million dollars to 12 former truck drivers and a 
separate judgment entered against the employer required the company to 
change its medical clearance policy to make medical inquiries of 
drivers only when they are job-related and consistent with business 
necessity.
Persistent Race and Ethnicity Discrimination
    As we see across the country, discrimination based on race and 
ethnicity persists in our Nation's workplaces. In fiscal year 2014, 
race discrimination remained the most frequent ground for 
discrimination alleged under title VII, comprising 35 percent of 
charges filed with the EEOC under all the statutes we enforce. Across 
the country, the agency has resolved race and national origin 
discrimination charges alleging barriers to equal opportunity, such as 
hiring discrimination and harassment on the job. During fiscal year 
2014, EEOC staff recovered more than $106 million in administrative 
resolutions of race and national origin charges--without litigation. In 
one notable resolution from fiscal year 2013, EEOC reached a 
conciliation agreement with an employer that stemmed from a systemic 
investigation launched after 78 charges were filed with the EEOC. The 
conciliation agreement provided $21.3 million to African-American 
workers whom the EEOC found were subjected to racial discrimination.
    When litigation has been necessary, we have succeeded in obtaining 
compensation for victims as well as vital changes to discriminatory 
practices at issue. For example, just last month, in EEOC v. Patterson-
UTI Drilling Company LLC, EEOC settled claims of race and national 
origin discrimination affecting more than 1,000 employees. EEOC alleged 
that since at least 2006, the employer engaged in a nationwide pattern 
or practice of discrimination on its drilling rigs, including by 
assigning African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, 
Asian-Americans, and biracial individuals to the lowest level jobs, 
failing to train and promote them, disproportionately disciplining and 
demoting them, and subjecting them to pervasive racial and ethnic 
slurs, and engaging in retaliation. The employer agreed to pay $14.5 
million, which includes a settlement fund plus benefits obtained in 
separate conciliation agreements on related charges of discrimination, 
as well as significant changes to its practices. In September 2014, in 
EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick, EEOC settled a case in which it alleged 
that a nationwide seafood restaurant refused to hire any African-
Americans into positions in which they would interact with the public, 
known as ``front-of-the-house'' positions, at its Baltimore 
restaurants. The consent decree in the case provides approximately $1.3 
million to approximately 200 individuals and requires significant 
changes in recruitment, hiring, and work assignments to ensure the 
restaurant's hiring practices do not discriminate in the future.
Barriers to Equal Employment Opportunity for Women
    Women continue to confront multiple barriers in the workplace. 
Although women now comprise nearly half the workforce, they continue to 
be over represented in low wage jobs. The EEOC has challenged 
discriminatory hiring practices against women in traditionally male 
fields such as trucking, mining, construction, and warehouse work. For 
example, in EEOC and Clouse v. New Prime, Inc., the court ruled that 
one of the Nation's largest trucking companies engaged in a deliberate 
pattern or practice of discrimination against female applicants for 
jobs as drivers by requiring that they be trained only by female 
trainers. Given the very few female trainers, this practice resulted in 
female trainees waiting extended periods of time--sometimes as long as 
18 months--for a female driver trainer to become available. As a result 
most female drivers were denied employment.
    Many women also experience a persistent pay gap, even when they 
work in the same jobs and are equally qualified as men. To assist 
employers in ensuring equal pay for equal work, last year alone, the 
EEOC conducted educational and outreach events on equal pay issues that 
reached nearly 40,000 attendees across the country. Still today, when 
women become pregnant, they continue to face harassment, demotions, 
decreased hours, forced leave, and even job loss. In fact, 
approximately 70 percent of the thousands of pregnancy discrimination 
charges EEOC receives each year allege women were fired as a result of 
their pregnancy.
         national strategic priorities and commission oversight
    As we serve the American public and enforce our civil rights laws, 
EEOC is committed to operating as effectively and strategically as 
possible. To that end, in February 2012, the Commission approved a 
strategic plan for fiscal years 2012-16, designed to coordinate the 
EEOC's programs to create sustainable reductions in discriminatory 
workplace practices. In December 2012, the Commission adopted a 
strategic enforcement plan, which established the following six 
national priorities:

    1. Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring;
    2. Protecting Immigrant, Migrant and Other Vulnerable Workers;
    3. Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues;
    4. Enforcing Equal Pay Laws;
    5. Preserving Access to the Legal System; and
    6. Preventing Harassment Through Systemic Enforcement and Targeted 
Outreach.

    Across the agency, we are deploying our resources more 
strategically to achieve broad and sustained compliance with our anti-
discrimination laws. We are further integrating all segments of agency 
operations and emphasizing effectiveness, efficiency and consistency. 
We are instituting improved channels of communication across the agency 
for greater coordination and consistency in private, public, and 
Federal sector enforcement.
    Throughout EEOC's history, the agency's success has hinged on 
carefully balancing national priorities, coordination, and oversight 
with local awareness, responsiveness, and discretion. With the goal of 
increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of its enforcement 
programs, a unanimous Commission delegated litigation authority to the 
General Counsel in the 1996 National Enforcement Plan. This action 
freed the Commission to focus on broad policy issues. In the 2012 
Strategic Enforcement Plan, on a bi-partisan basis, the Commission 
reaffirmed that delegation of authority and established quarterly 
reports and meetings to continually assess the success of delegated 
authority.
    Currently, the Commission must approve decisions to commence or 
intervene in litigation in significant cases that: (1) require a major 
expenditure of resources; (2) address a developing area of law; or (3) 
raise issues of public controversy. In addition, the Commission must 
review and approve all recommendations for EEOC to participate as 
amicus curiae. The 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan also directs that a 
minimum of one litigation recommendation from each EEOC District Office 
must be presented for Commission consideration each fiscal year, 
including litigation recommendations based on the above criteria.
 identifying collaborative solutions to strengthen america's workplaces
    For EEOC, this 50th anniversary year offers a vital opportunity to 
engage all who share the goal of promoting equal employment opportunity 
in a broader effort to build stronger workplaces that fully utilize the 
talents and potential of all workers. EEOC is actively partnering with 
employers and employees alike to identify strategies for widening the 
doors to equal opportunity for all in the workplace.
    We have redoubled our efforts to develop solutions to our most 
complex problems. With 30 percent of the charges filed in a fiscal year 
alleging workplace harassment, combating harassment is a high priority. 
Race is cited most frequently as the basis for harassment allegations 
followed by disability and gender. In January, the Commission convened 
a public meeting to hear from experts on preventing and addressing 
workplace harassment. To develop a comprehensive strategy to address 
this issue, I asked EEOC Commissioners Victoria A. Lipnic and Chai R. 
Feldblum to co-chair a Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in 
the Workplace. They have invited employers, workers' advocates, 
academics, and others experienced with harassment issues and will be 
holding public meetings to identify underlying problems leading to 
harassment claims and effective strategies for preventing and remedying 
workplace harassment.
    The agency continues to explore solutions to address and overcome 
entrenched workplace barriers based on race and ethnicity. Last month, 
the EEOC convened a Commission meeting in Miami, FL, entitled ``EEOC at 
50: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in the 21st Century 
Workplace.'' A broad range of national and local stakeholders shared 
their perspectives on ongoing challenges and promising solutions. 
Witnesses emphasized that despite significant progress in the past 50 
years, discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities remains a 
too-frequent reality in 21st century America. Other witnesses described 
today's new barriers to employment and encouraged the EEOC to address 
those barriers through creative partnerships with employers.
    Next month, the Commission will host a public Commission meeting on 
retaliation in the workplace. Retaliation remains the most frequently 
alleged basis of discrimination under all the statutes we enforce, 
comprising 42.8 percent of all charges filed with the agency in fiscal 
year 2014. The Commission meeting will address the root causes of 
retaliation in the workplace and explore strategies for prevention to 
ensure that individuals are not chilled from reporting violations of 
the law. As necessary, the agency will continue to challenge 
retaliatory practices. The agency did so effectively, just last month, 
when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury 
verdict in EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, finding the employer liable for 
a supervisor's sexual harassment of three female employees and 
retaliation against them by firing them shortly after they complained 
about the harassment, and retaliation against a male employee who 
supported the women's claims. In its ruling, the court provided 
important clarification on the scope of retaliation protected under 
title VII when it found that an employee's oral complaints to a 
supervisor to cease harassing conduct constitute protected activity.
    In addition, as the Nation's largest employer, the Federal 
Government continues to strive to be a model employer. The EEOC 
strategically partners with other Federal agencies to promote workplace 
policies and practices that remove barriers to equal employment 
opportunity and foster an inclusive work environment. I am pleased to 
serve on the Steering Committee for the newly created government-wide 
Diversity and Inclusion Council. Along with the Office of Personnel 
Management, the Department of Labor, the Office of Management and 
Budget, and the White House, this effort promotes collaboration among 
Federal agencies to develop approaches that achieve model EEO programs 
and broad inclusion throughout the Federal Government.
                providing guidance to promote compliance
    One of the most crucial tools at the Commission's disposal is 
providing guidance to help employers and employees, alike, better 
understand and comply with our anti-discrimination laws.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Wellness Programs
    On April 20, 2015, EEOC published in the Federal Register a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that addresses the ADA's application to 
employer wellness programs. As part of this process, we coordinated 
with the Federal agencies that have responsibility for enforcing and 
implementing the provisions of HIPAA and the ACA related to wellness 
programs, including the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Treasury. The public comment period on the NPRM closes on 
June 19th, and the Commission looks forward to reviewing these comments 
as it shapes the final regulation.
    The Commission understands the critical need for EEOC guidance 
concerning employer wellness programs and the interaction of the ADA 
with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 
and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We recognize that many employers 
wish to implement wellness programs in an effort to improve their 
employees' health and reduce health care costs. We are also mindful 
that wellness programs must adhere to the ADA's requirement that 
disability-related inquiries (such as questions on a health risk 
assessment) or medical examinations (such as blood tests for 
cholesterol levels) that are part of employee health programs must be 
``voluntary.''
    In addition, we anticipate that in the near future, the Commission 
will also issue amendments to EEOC's regulations implementing Title II 
of GINA to address employer wellness programs. Our goal is to propose 
rules that harmonize ADA and GINA requirements with HIPAA and the ACA, 
as well as to provide certainty to employers about their obligations.
Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination
    In July 2014, the Commission issued a comprehensive update to the 
agency's pregnancy guidance that covers a range of issues, including 
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act's (PDA) application to current, past, 
and potential pregnancy; the application of the PDA to nursing mothers; 
the prohibition of forced leave policies; and the application of the 
ADA to pregnancy-related impairments. This was the first update of our 
pregnancy guidance in over 30 years. The Commission initiated the 
process of updating the guidance with a Commission meeting in 2012 
focused on pregnancy discrimination. Stakeholders at the meeting urged 
the Commission to update its guidance to reflect developments in the 
law, including the passage of the ADA Amendments Act in 2008, which 
expanded protections for those with temporary impairments.
    The Supreme Court's recent decision in Young v. UPS addresses the 
PDA and recognizes that the ADA, as amended, provides important 
protections for employees with pregnancy-related conditions. As a 
result of this decision, many pregnant women who were previously denied 
accommodations will now be entitled to receive them. The Commission 
will be updating its guidance on pregnancy accommodation issues in 
accordance with the Court's decision.
Guidance on Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in 
        Employment Decisions
    The EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and 
Conviction Records in Employment Decisions is another example of 
guidance that is promoting compliance. The Commission approved this 
updated guidance by a bipartisan vote to clarify how employers can use 
background checks as part of their selection process. Consistent with 
longstanding court decisions, the guidance provides that when 
conducting criminal background checks, employers should not 
categorically exclude everyone with a criminal record. Rather, they 
should target criminal background screens to reflect the nature of the 
crimes, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job and then allow 
those who are identified as failing the screen an opportunity to 
correct errors in the criminal records and submit supplemental 
information for individualized consideration. A Wall Street Journal 
article reported that 77.7 million individuals, or nearly one out of 
every three American adults, have a file in the FBI's master criminal 
data base. See http://www.wsj.com/articles/decadeslong-arrest-wave-
vexes-employers-1418438092 (Dec. 12, 2014). EEOC's guidance seeks to 
ensure that individuals have a chance to be considered where they are 
qualified to do the job.
    An increasing number of businesses have explicitly adopted the 
principles laid out in the guidance. According to a 2014 survey by 
screening company EmployeeScreenIQ, 88 percent of the nearly 600 
respondents said they had adopted the principles contained in EEOC 
guidance. Finally, many employers and jurisdictions have adopted what 
are known as ``ban-the-box'' policies that delay the consideration of 
criminal records until later in the employment process--a policy the 
EEOC guidance recommends. Indeed, at least 16 States have approved ban-
the-box legislation, including Vermont (2015), Virginia (2015), Georgia 
(2015), Delaware (2014), Nebraska (2014), Illinois (2014 and 2013), New 
Jersey (2014), California (2013), Maryland (2013), Minnesota (2013), 
Rhode Island (2013), Colorado (2012), Connecticut (2010), Massachusetts 
(2010), New Mexico (2010), and Hawaii (1998).
    efficient and effective enforcement to promote broad compliance
    The EEOC is ensuring efficient and effective enforcement by using 
integrated strategies that encourage prompt and voluntary resolution of 
charges and improve employment policies and practices so that employers 
can prevent discrimination from occurring. The agency is also investing 
its resources strategically to address recurring and persistent 
problems in the workplace in order to remove barriers to opportunity 
and improve working conditions for a significant number of workers.
    Voluntary compliance remains the preferred means of preventing and 
remedying employment discrimination. Our mediation, settlement and 
conciliation efforts serve as prime examples of our investment in 
strategies to resolve workplace disputes early, efficiently, and with 
lasting impact. In fiscal year 2014, these informal settlement methods 
secured more than $296 million in benefits for individuals, without 
resort to litigation. EEOC's private sector national mediation program 
serves an integral role in the agency's work. Mediation is a voluntary 
process where a neutral mediator assists the employer and employee in 
reaching an early and confidential resolution of the employment dispute 
raised in a charge of discrimination. This program has consistently 
achieved outstanding results for participants. In fiscal year 2014, 
EEOC's mediation program successfully helped employers and employees 
voluntarily resolve 7,846 (77 percent) of the 10,221 mediations it 
conducted. Through these mediations, EEOC obtained $144.6 million in 
relief for individuals. Moreover, participants nearly uniformly view 
the mediation program favorably, with over 96 percent reporting 
confidence in the program this past year.
    EEOC's conciliation efforts are another vital means to promote 
voluntary compliance. Conciliation efforts occur after the agency has 
completed its investigation of a charge and notified the parties of its 
determination of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has 
occurred. Conciliation is an informal method of resolving a charge of 
discrimination where the agency endeavors to eliminate unlawful 
employment practices by working with an employer to reach a mutually 
satisfactory resolution before any litigation is filed. EEOC's record 
demonstrates its commitment to, and success in, resolving charges 
through conciliation. Over the past 3 years, EEOC has worked with 
employers to conciliate and voluntarily resolve a greater percentage of 
cases than at any time in recent history--with successful conciliations 
rising from 27 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 38 percent in fiscal year 
2014. The success rate for conciliation of systemic charges is even 
higher--at 47 percent, which is particularly significant as these 
charges are more complex and have the potential to improve practices 
for a significant number of workers.
    The Supreme Court's decision in Mach Mining LLC v. EEOC_U.S._, 2015 
WL 1913911 (2015), provides needed clarity across the courts concerning 
standards for judicial review of EEOC's conciliation efforts. The 
standard set forth by the Supreme Court will effectuate the purpose of 
conciliation, by encouraging all parties to focus on informally 
resolving the charge. The Commission takes its obligation to conciliate 
seriously, and we will ensure that additional guidance and training for 
EEOC staff further advances the agency's effectiveness in our 
conciliation efforts. The Court's decision will promote a more 
efficient use of agency, employer, and judicial resources by ensuring 
the focus of the case is on resolving the merits of the claims of 
discrimination.
    EEOC has a strong incentive to successfully resolve charges through 
conciliation. Successful conciliations ensure that unlawful employment 
practices are remedied more quickly, thus conserving agency resources. 
These conciliation agreements can also help to improve workplace 
policies and prevent discrimination from occurring in the first 
instance. Indeed, employers agreed to include changes to workplace 
policies in nearly 850 conciliation agreements over the last 3 years.
    Through its administrative and legal resolutions, the agency has 
increased the percentage of agreements with targeted equitable relief 
to improve workplace practices from 64 percent in fiscal year 2013 to 
73 percent in fiscal year 2014. This is especially significant, as it 
surpassed the goals set out in EEOC's Strategic Plan for targeted 
equitable relief for fiscal year 2014 (63-67 percent), fiscal year 2015 
(64-68 percent), and fiscal year 2016 (65-70 percent). Indeed, EEOC has 
worked with employers to secure policy changes in 1,724 agreements 
through all administrative resolutions, including mediations, 
conciliations, and settlements, and has obtained nonmonetary benefits 
for nearly 92,000 workers in cases over the past 3 years. Examples of 
these changes include adoption of anti-harassment policies, objective 
promotion policies, and reasonable accommodation policies--policies 
that will help prevent discrimination from recurring.
    Systemic investigations and cases--those where the practice or 
policy has a broad effect on an industry, occupation, or geographic 
area--are another critical strategy for leveraging the EEOC's resources 
to most effectively promote compliance and remedy discrimination. In 
2005, EEOC established a Systemic Task Force under the leadership of 
former Commissioner Leslie E. Silverman. Former Chair Cari M. Dominguez 
charged the Task Force with responsibility for examining the 
Commission's systemic program and recommending new strategies for 
combating systemic discrimination. In 2006, a unanimous Commission 
adopted the recommendations of the Systemic Task Force and established 
a nationwide systemic program as a top priority of the Commission.
    In 2012, the Commission reaffirmed the importance of systemic 
enforcement in its Strategic Plan and Strategic Enforcement Plan. The 
Commission has worked to create a structure and strategy to coordinate 
systemic cases across the country, provide increased headquarters 
support for the systemic work of the field offices, enhance systemic 
skills, and provide technology to support the development of systemic 
cases. We have hired social scientists and labor economists who are 
located in EEOC's field offices to directly support systemic 
investigations and analyze workforce data and employment practices. 
Through these actions and others, EEOC is strengthening its systemic 
infrastructure to enhance the agency's ability to identify and remedy 
persistent patterns of discrimination across the workforce.
    As a result of these efforts, at the end of fiscal year 2014, 57 
out of 228, or 25 percent of the cases on EEOC's litigation docket were 
systemic. This is the largest proportion of systemic lawsuits on EEOC's 
docket since tracking began in fiscal year 2016. In fiscal year 2014, 
the agency continued to achieve a high level of results in its systemic 
investigations and secured $13 million in monetary relief. Also, in 
2014, EEOC's success rate for conciliation of systemic charges of 
discrimination was 47 percent. Examples of systemic matters 
successfully resolved in fiscal year 2014 prior to litigation include:

     The EEOC reached a negotiated settlement agreement with a 
company to pay $650,000 to African-American and Hispanic individuals 
the company is alleged to have failed to hire because of their race or 
national origin. The company also agreed to hire additional workers, 
bringing the combined value of this relief to over $4.6 million;
     After finding reasonable cause to believe that a company 
had a practice of not hiring women for driving positions because of 
their sex, the EEOC reached a successful conciliation agreement with 
the employer. The company agreed to pay $530,000 to women who EEOC 
alleged were denied hire and also to provide significant targeted 
equitable relief including the adoption of an effective EEO policy 
prohibiting discrimination based on sex. The agreement also calls for 
anti-discrimination training for all human resources employees focused 
on preventing sex discrimination.
     The EEOC successfully conciliated four systemic ADEA 
investigations alleging that the employers stopped allowing volunteer 
firefighters to accrue points for performing certain duties when they 
reached age 55 or 60. Total monetary benefits of over $1.4 million were 
agreed to for these firefighters through the conciliation agreements. 
The employers also changed their policies to bring them into compliance 
with the ADEA.

    When the EEOC makes a finding that there is reasonable cause to 
believe that the company has engaged in a pattern or practice of 
systemic discrimination and efforts to secure voluntary compliance are 
not successful, the agency may choose to file suit to enforce the law. 
In fiscal year 2014, the Commission filed 17 systemic lawsuits. These 
suits challenge a range of alleged systemic barriers, including:

     Refusing to place African-American applicants into front-
of the-house restaurant positions;
     Refusing to hire applicants over age 40 for front-of-the-
house restaurant positions;
     Inflexible leave and fitness for duty policies that deny 
reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities; and
     Widespread harassment based on race, sex and national 
origin.

    Our General Counsel, P. David Lopez will discuss our litigation 
program in greater detail during his testimony. Briefly, I would like 
to highlight that when the Commission files suit, our litigation 
program has been highly successful. EEOC favorably resolved 93 percent 
of the cases resolved last fiscal year. As a Federal agency, we hold 
ourselves to a high standard. We carefully select the cases that we 
decide to litigate, and we strive to ensure all our work is pursued 
with excellence. Where we receive adverse decisions, we communicate 
lessons learned from significant cases across the agency to ensure that 
we continually improve our effectiveness and our service to the public.
       investing in our infrastructure to better serve the public
    One of the agency's greatest responsibilities is to provide timely 
and responsive service to both employees and employers involved in 
discrimination disputes. Through investments in staffing, training, and 
technology we are improving the quality of our customer service.
    The EEOC continually strives to ensure that employees and employers 
resolve discrimination charges as promptly as possible. To do so, the 
agency must have the staff and resources to deliver a high level of 
service. Increases in the EEOC's budget in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal 
year 2010 enabled the agency to hire 164 new investigators and 
mediators. Together with the training of these new staff and diligent 
charge management, these efforts generated nearly a 20 percent 
reduction in the charge workload in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 
2012--the first decreases in nearly 10 years.
    These gains could not be sustained in fiscal year 2013 due in part 
to attrition of front-line staff coupled with a hiring freeze and the 
effects of governmental sequestration when the EEOC had to furlough its 
entire workforce for 5 days. The government shutdown in the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2014 also slowed the replacement of departing 
staff.
    The fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which included a $20 million 
increase for EEOC from the sequestration-impacted level fiscal year 
2013 budget, allowed the agency to launch a critical mid-year hiring 
effort in order to rebuild our workforce, particularly those who 
provide direct services to the public in the 53 field offices and who 
investigate, mediate, conciliate, and litigate pending discrimination 
claims. During the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2014, EEOC 
hired approximately 116 investigators and 12 mediators, helping to 
restore much-needed capacity to the front-line staffing levels and 
rebuild the enforcement capability of the field offices. As these new 
hires are trained and come on board, we expect to see the benefits of 
this hiring beginning in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015. In 
addition, we are working to increase the speed in which we hire front-
line staff this year and have approved 105 replacement hires since the 
beginning of the year. Our office of the Chief Human Capital Officer is 
working with hiring managers to make full use of the hiring authorities 
and flexibilities available to streamline recruitment and selection 
procedures. We are also devoting additional resources to enable 
expedited job postings and applicant screenings.
    In addition to hiring in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, we 
will continue our focus on identifying creative approaches to 
addressing the pending workload and utilizing priority charge handling 
procedures to produce further reductions in the timeframe for 
completing investigations of charges. In doing so, we will balance our 
efforts to address the pending workload while maintaining the highest 
levels of quality in our investigations and conciliations.
    EEOC is also investing in systems to better serve the public, by 
using technology to increase responsiveness to employees and employers 
and to streamline and automate services to the public. For our private 
sector enforcement program, EEOC is developing systems that will allow 
charging parties and employers to check the status of their charge 
online, to transform the current paper system into a digital charge 
system, and to provide individuals with online-scheduling options for 
intake appointments. Earlier this month, we announced that 11 of our 
offices will begin a pilot program called ACT Digital to digitally 
transmit documents between the EEOC and employers regarding 
discrimination charges. This pilot program is an important first step 
in the EEOC's move toward an online charge system that will streamline 
the submission of documents and communications for employees and 
employers. These efforts will improve our responsiveness to the public 
and efficiently utilize our resources by allowing investigators to 
spend more time investigating and resolving charges.
    In fiscal year 2013, EEOC deployed a Federal Sector equal 
employment opportunity portal to all Federal agencies, to provide 
electronic submission and collection of Federal Agency Program 
Reporting workforce data. In fiscal year 2015, EEOC will integrate the 
Federal Sector hearings and appeals data into the Federal portal, which 
will be combined with complaint data, workforce data, and barrier 
analysis to build a more complete picture of how agencies are 
progressing in the development of model EEO programs. These efforts 
will enable us to provide additional education and guidance focused on 
pressing issues to assist Federal agencies in implementing preventive 
measures to address workplace conflict. The end result of these efforts 
will be better customer service and a strengthened and more efficient 
agency.
                             moving forward
    The Commission is working hard every day to fulfill the promise of 
equal employment opportunity. EEOC requested a budget of $373.1 million 
for fiscal year 2016, an increase of $8.6 million above the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level of $364.5 million. The majority of this requested 
increase--$6.2 million is necessary to maintain our current staffing 
levels, and the remaining $2.4 million would allow investments in 
needed technology and fund increased rent and office relocations. These 
resources will allow EEOC to continue restoring our capacity in mission 
critical areas, repairing the adverse effects of recent budget cuts, 
addressing workload concerns, and continuing to implement our Strategic 
Plan to better serve the public.
    Our commitment to fostering a more level playing field in the 
workplace is unwavering; yet, we know that we cannot do this alone. We 
are building active, engaged partnerships with employers and employees 
as well as across the Federal Government to develop creative solutions 
to the workplace challenges facing many employers and employees today. 
I appreciate the opportunity to share with the committee the efforts 
and vision of the EEOC. I look forward to working with you to make this 
vision a reality, and I thank you again for your continued support.
    I look forward to responding to any questions or comments you may 
have.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Yang.
    Mr. Lopez.

STATEMENT OF P. DAVID LOPEZ, GENERAL COUNSEL, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
             OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ARLINGTON, VA

    Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Chairman Alexander, Ranking 
Member Murray, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting 
me and Chair Yang to testify today.
    As General Counsel of the EEOC, I am in charge of the 
Commission's litigation program, overseeing the Commission's 15 
regional attorneys and 325 outstanding staff members who 
conduct or support Commission litigation throughout the Nation 
and are motivated by the highest ideals of public service. This 
year, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the EEOC, which was 
created by the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    The Civil Rights Act, which grew out of the freedom 
struggle aimed at throwing off an odious racial caste system, 
has inspired each generation of Americans to expand opportunity 
for women, religious minorities, older workers, individuals 
with disabilities, and the LGBT community. This anniversary is 
an opportunity to reflect on how the statutes we enforce have 
transformed this Nation by enabling countless individuals to 
unleash their individual potential and productivity.
    So where are we today? As the agency's chief prosecutor, I 
believe there is bad news and good news. The bad news is that 
discrimination remains a problem in this country.
    For example, in a recent case from North Carolina, two 
African-American truck drivers were repeatedly subjected to 
derogatory slurs, including the ``N'' word, nooses, and threats 
of lynching. However, the good news is that it took a Winston-
Salem jury less than an hour to come back and find the employer 
liable. The court issued broad injunctive relief, and the 
appellate court affirmed.
    Plainly, there is work to do. The EEOC's goal to eradicate 
discrimination appropriately begins with prevention. The EEOC 
issues policy guidance to convey the agency's views to the 
public of the statutes it enforces and devotes enormous 
attention and resources to public outreach and education.
    When, following investigation of a charge, we find 
discrimination, we try to resolve it informally. When informal 
resolution is not possible, the statute gives us authority to 
file suit in Federal court.
    Most of our cases settle. That is a good outcome, because 
it means that the employer is willing to come to the table and 
work to remedy the violation. Last year, our office was able to 
favorably resolve 93 percent of the cases. When we have had to 
go to trial, I am pleased to say that we have won two-thirds of 
our jury trials from fiscal year 2013 to the present. This 
public record shows a successful program in ensuring fairness 
for victims of unlawful discrimination and deterring future 
misconduct.
    My written testimony sets forth many examples of our 
litigation efforts. We have successfully prosecuted cases 
involving employers who have failed to hire any women in 
certain positions in the 21st century, who admit to firing a 
woman because she is pregnant, who have impeded economic 
independence for workers with disabilities.
    We have also successfully litigated cases challenging age 
and religious discrimination. As you know, the Supreme Court 
recently heard our religious discrimination case against 
Abercrombie and Fitch, a case defending the quintessentially 
American principles of religious freedom and tolerance. Such a 
broad range of religious and other organizations filed amicus 
briefs in support of the EEOC's position that one article 
commented that we had united the world's religions.
    We, however, do not win all of our cases. I understand your 
concern about some high profile losses and fee awards against 
the Commission. Here is what we have done. Where we are not 
successful, I have stressed a culture of examining lessons 
learned in order to carry out our public law enforcement 
mission more effectively.
    This means my personal review of these cases; discussions 
with the attorneys involved; immediate adjustment of any 
internal practices, if appropriate, to ensure we don't repeat 
our mistakes, as well as to ensure we have fresh perspectives 
on these very complex cases; and a review of the issues with 
management, as well as in training programs.
    To close, despite these setbacks, we make a positive 
difference in the quality of opportunity for working families. 
At a recent Commission meeting, we highlighted the resolution 
of a race and national origin harassment case filed against an 
oil well service business in Wyoming. A charging party from 
this case recounted how he was shocked that his supervisor 
called him and other Latino employees dumb Mexicans, worthless 
Mexicans. As is almost always the case, our resolution included 
significant non-monetary relief.
    Our courageous charging party was grateful, testifying,

          ``Now that it's all over, I am proud that we stood up 
        for ourselves, and I'm glad the EEOC was able to help 
        get things like training and surveys as part of the 
        settlement. All I ever wanted was to change how people 
        were being treated, and, hopefully, I helped to do 
        that.''

    Thank you for your attention, and I'm pleased to answer any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of P. David Lopez
    Good afternoon, Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, members 
of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am 
pleased to be here with my colleague, Chair Jenny Yang.
    My name is David Lopez and I am the General Counsel of the U.S. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Congress in 1972 gave 
EEOC litigation authority to ``ensure more effective enforcement of 
title VII,'' General Telephone Company of the Northwest v. EEOC, 446 
U.S. 318, 325 (1980). As General Counsel, I am in charge of the 
Commission's litigation program, overseeing the Agency's 15 Regional 
Attorneys and a staff of more than 325 lawyers and legal professionals 
who conduct or support Commission litigation in district and appellate 
courts throughout the Nation.
    When President Obama first nominated me in 2009 to be the EEOC's 
General Counsel, I had served as an attorney and civil servant under 
both Republican and Democratic administrations. Throughout my tenure I 
have observed firsthand that civil rights are not a partisan issue, but 
an American promise. Last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964--one of the most transformative pieces of 
legislation in the country's history. Along with subsequent legislation 
targeting discrimination based on other traits such as age and 
disability, it has enabled countless individuals to unleash their 
potential and productivity, which in turn drives our Nation's economic 
engine. This year, we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the EEOC, an 
agency created by the 1964 Act.
    As we all know, the Civil Rights Act grew out of the freedom 
struggle aimed at throwing off an odious racial caste system. This 
struggle triggered an enduring conversation in our country about the 
meaning of freedom and our understanding of opportunity. Title VII 
included protections against race discrimination along with protections 
against discrimination on the basis of sex, national origin, religion, 
and color. Each generation has advanced this discussion, and the 
freedom struggle, illustrated by the children's crusade in Birmingham, 
has inspired each generation to expand opportunity for women, religious 
minorities, older workers, individuals with disabilities and, in this 
moment, the LGBT community. Even though we may disagree on the 
specifics or the finer points of law, as I travel the country I have no 
doubt that there is a broad national consensus for the value of equal 
opportunity and its vital importance to individual productivity and 
potential.
    I am proud to have devoted most of my career to this agency, 
created 50 years ago to further these values, and to have worked with 
many dedicated colleagues who believe in the value of public service to 
their country and communities and who doubtless could pursue more 
lucrative career options. This includes Robert Canino, the regional 
attorney in Dallas, who won a $240 million verdict on behalf of 32 
workers with intellectual disabilities. These workers had been brought 
to Iowa to work at a turkey evisceration plant. During their 
employment, they were housed in an old schoolhouse where they were 
deprived of access to medical care, and subjected to verbal and 
sometimes physical abuse. In a top of the fold article in the New York 
Times, Robert was deemed the men's ``last, best hope for justice.'' In 
my mind, this description speaks for the large majority of my EEOC 
colleagues.
    Indeed, the EEOC is a small agency with a big mission--to stop and 
remedy unlawful employment discrimination. To that end, the Agency has 
carried out its mission consistently and dutifully, decade after decade 
and we can see its impact in every corner of American society.
    The EEOC's goal to prevent, stop, and remedy discrimination begins 
with prevention. The Commission issues policy guidance designed to 
explain employer responsibilities and employee rights under the laws we 
enforce and devotes enormous attention and resources to public outreach 
and education across the country. As Chair Yang mentioned, we receive 
and investigate nearly 100,000 private-sector charges per year and 
resolve the vast majority of them informally, in mediation or 
conciliation. Before we litigate, we look at the conciliation efforts 
to ensure that informal resolution was not possible. When these tools 
do not work, the statute authorizes the Commission to file suit to 
enforce the Nation's employment anti-discrimination laws in Federal 
court.
           fifty years after civil rights act: where are we?
    Where are we? From my vantage point as the EEOC's chief prosecutor, 
this is an important question. Given the origins of the Act and recent 
events in our Nation, there is bad news and good news. The bad news is 
that discrimination is still a real problem in this country. For 
example, we recently had a case in North Carolina involving racial 
harassment. Two African-American truck drivers were repeatedly 
subjected to derogatory racial comments and slurs that included the 
``N'' word and the displaying of a noose. The fact that this is still 
happening in the 21st century underscores that there is more work to be 
done to eradicate race discrimination in the workplace. However, I 
would note that the good news is that it took the jury in Winston-
Salem, NC less than an hour to find the employer liable and assess 
damages, and the Fourth Circuit less than a month to affirm the 
decision and the district court's order of broad injunctive relief to 
make sure the conduct did not recur.
    Similarly, we settled two major systemic race discrimination cases 
for eight figure monetary settlements and broad non-monetary relief. 
The first case, EEOC, et al. v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' 
Int'l Ass'n, et al., was filed nearly 40 years ago by the Department of 
Justice against Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International 
Association, and the EEOC's New York District Office took the case over 
when litigation authority was transferred to the EEOC in 1972. In this 
case, the union has agreed to pay $12.7 million over 5 years in 
settlement of allegations of discrimination against black and Hispanic 
journey persons on the basis of race.
    The second case, EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LLC, is a 
nationwide race and national origin discrimination case filed against a 
drilling company that alleged race and national origin discrimination, 
harassment and retaliation. We were able to settle this case early 
without the need for discovery or lengthy proceedings. The employer 
agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement fund for a class of victims 
of the discrimination and strong injunctive relief provisions that will 
foster a work environment that is free from discrimination. These are 
major successes for the systemic litigation program.
        broad-based support to combat continuing discrimination
    From what I hear from the public as I travel across the country, 
while we have had significant successes, there is more work to do.
    Sex discrimination remains a problem. There are some employers, 50 
years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, who have hired few, if 
any women, in certain positions. For example, not too long ago, we 
secured a victory in a systemic pattern or practice case involving a 
trucking company in Missouri that had a policy of assigning trainees 
based on sex. The court ruled, as a matter of law, that this 
constituted a pattern or practice violation of title VII's prohibition 
against sex discrimination. There are numerous other case examples of 
the good work we have done in this area.
    Unfortunately, one of the most overt forms of discrimination we 
continue to see is pregnancy discrimination. I hear ongoing frustration 
from women and their families across the country that some employers 
still don't understand this is discrimination like any other form of 
discrimination. I am pleased to report, however, we have had many 
successes in this area. (see Pregnancy Litigation Fact Sheet). One 
example of our success is Young v. UPS, the pregnancy discrimination 
case recently decided by the Supreme Court addressing the circumstances 
when an employer has an obligation to provide leave under the Pregnancy 
Discrimination Act. The Commission joined the government's brief in 
support of Ms. Young, and Ms. Young was also supported by organizations 
from across the political spectrum.
    We have been very successful in litigating cases on behalf of 
individuals with disabilities. For example, recently we prevailed at a 
trial in Miami in a case involving a licensed security guard with only 
one arm who was removed from his post because a customer complained 
about his disability.
    We have also vigorously litigated cases based on religious 
discrimination. The Supreme Court recently heard our case against 
Abercrombie and Fitch. In this case, the Court examined title VII's 
requirement that companies reasonably accommodate workers' religious 
beliefs and practices. This case involves Samantha Elauf, a 17-year-old 
Muslim woman born and raised in Tulsa, OK whom we allege was denied 
hire by the company because she wore a hijab in observance of her 
religion. A broad range of religious groups filed amicus briefs in 
support of the EEOC's position and the principle of religious freedom, 
including the Beckett Fund, Orthodox Jewish groups, Seventh Day 
Adventists groups, and Islamic groups. Other groups supported the 
EEOC's position as well, including Lambda Legal Defense and Education 
Fund.
    This case illustrates the EEOC's commitment to protecting the 
religious exercise of all Americans and underscores the singular 
important role that the EEOC's litigation can play in helping to 
clarify the law, and thus, in ultimately bringing greater certainty 
about legal obligations and rights for employers and employees alike. 
Regardless of the outcome, the fact that the EEOC was there to take 
this young woman's religious discrimination claim all the way to the 
Supreme Court of the United States in that Romanesque building around 
the corner with the words ``Equal Justice Under Law'' over the entrance 
should make us all proud.
    We are also working to end workplace discrimination in other areas, 
such as discrimination against transgender individuals and the 
discrimination that continues against immigrant and vulnerable workers 
who work on the margins and are often most susceptible to abuse and 
exploitation.
    Indeed, we have enjoyed numerous litigation successes that include: 
EEOC v. Presrite (N.D. Ohio 2013) ($700,000 settlement, plus priority 
consideration to at least 40 female job applicants as well as new 
measures designed to prevent future discrimination); EEOC v. Interstate 
Distributor (D. Colo. 2012) ($4.85 million settlement, along with 
revised ADA policy), EEOC v. Yellow/YRC (N.D. Ill. 2012) ($11 million 
settlement in title VII race harassment case); EEOC v. Pitre (D. N.M. 
2012) ($2 million settlement, plus new policies and practices to 
provide a work environment free of sexual harassment and retaliation, 
evaluation of managers on compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and 
a compliance monitor); EEOC v. Verizon (D. MD. 2011) ($20 million 
settlement, representing EEOC's largest ADA settlement, plus 
requirement for revised attendance plans, policies and ADA policy to 
include reasonable accommodations); EEOC v. ABM (E.D. Cal. 2010) ($5.8 
million settlement, along with outside EEO monitor, training for 
investigators of harassment complaints, tracking future discrimination 
complaints, employee training in English and Spanish, internal 
compliance audits, and periodic annual reports to the EEOC); and EEOC 
v. Republic Services (D. Nev. 2010) ($3 million settlement, plus hiring 
of EEO compliance officer, internal audit policies and procedures, 
training and reports to EEOC, tracking of future discrimination 
complaints).
    Most of our cases settle--and that is a good outcome because it 
means that the employer was willing to come to the table and work with 
us on an appropriate remedy. In the event that a case is not settled, 
however, the Commission has had an enormously successful trial program. 
We have won 16 of our last 24 jury trials from fiscal year 2013 to the 
present. These trial victories include not only the Henry's Turkey case 
that I previously mentioned, but also cases involving the denial of 
promotion based on sex, disability discrimination, age discrimination, 
racial harassment, sexual harassment, and retaliation. The law 
enforcement and public education value of these cases in underscoring 
our government's commitment to eliminating illegal workplace 
discrimination in local communities and across the Nation cannot be 
underestimated.
    We also have obtained landmark victories in the appellate courts. 
For example, in EEOC v. Houston Funding, a panel of the Fifth Circuit 
issued a landmark--but common-sense--ruling recognizing that 
discrimination against a woman because she is lactating is 
discrimination ``because of sex'' in violation of Title VII and the 
Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This case is one success among many in 
the courts of appeals, which also include such recent cases as EEOC v. 
Baltimore County, 747 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014) (agreeing with EEOC's 
contention that pension system treated older new-hires less favorably 
because of their age by requiring them to make larger contributions 
than younger new-hires); EEOC v. United Airlines, 693 F.3d 760 (7th 
Cir. 2012) (transfer accommodation of qualified individuals is 
mandatory absent undue hardship), cert petition denied; EEOC v. Cintas 
Corp., 699 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012) (pattern-or-practice hiring claim 
may be pursued under section 706), cert petition denied.
    Last year, the Office of General Counsel was able to favorably 
resolve 93 percent of its cases. By any measure, this is outstanding. I 
believe we can learn from all of our cases--both the wins and the 
losses--and have stressed extensively during my tenure a culture of 
examining ``lessons learned'' in order to carry out our law enforcement 
mission more effectively and efficiently. This includes a personal 
review of cases where we have been subject to fees; discussions with 
the attorneys involved; a discussion of the cases during our regular 
regional attorney calls, including lessons for the program; an 
immediate adjustment of any internal practices, if appropriate, to 
ensure we improve our law enforcement performance and don't repeat our 
mistakes; and a broader discussion of the issues in formal training 
sessions. And, of course, significant adverse decisions are circulated 
to all attorneys.
                  litigation as a tool of last resort
    While it's my job as General Counsel to be the Agency's chief 
litigator, let me be clear: I believe litigation should be the 
enforcement tool of last resort. I do not believe in suing first, and 
asking questions later--and our statutory authority does not 
contemplate or permit this. In fiscal year 2014, for instance, we 
litigated on the merits only .15 percent of all charges filed. That is 
about one-and-a-half lawsuits for every 1,000 charges filed. During my 
tenure as GC, I have focused on developing and filing critical cases, 
particularly those that further the public interest. We carefully and 
deliberately vet our potential litigation vehicles to ensure effective 
enforcement nationwide and across the statutes. And we seek approval 
from the Agency's Commissioners--by law, a bipartisan group--consistent 
with the guidelines the Commission itself has adopted to govern the 
delegation of litigation authority.
    As General Counsel, I, along with those under my direction, 
actively and enthusiastically support the Agency's non-litigation 
enforcement efforts. Voluntary compliance is an important component of 
those efforts and I have proudly defended our agency's record on this 
front. Indeed, on April 29, 2015, in Mach Mining v. EEOC, the Supreme 
Court held in a unanimous opinion that ``a court may review whether the 
EEOC satisfied its statutory obligation to attempt conciliation before 
suit[, but] the scope of that review is narrow.'' In particular, 
judicial review is limited to whether the EEOC has ``inform[ed] the 
employer about the specific allegation'' and whether the EEOC has 
``tr[ied] to engage the employer in some form of discussion.'' In 
issuing its decision, the court noted that title VII is about 
substantive outcomes. The Supreme Court's decision ends confusion in 
the lower courts about the standard of review and is a step forward for 
victims of discrimination because we can now focus our attention on the 
merits of the discrimination allegations in our litigation and ensuring 
workplace fairness.
    As I noted at my recent re-confirmation hearing, during my tenure 
as General Counsel, I believe we have engaged in unprecedented levels 
of outreach to various stakeholder groups across the country, including 
to bar and management groups. Indeed, the day following my confirmation 
hearing, I addressed and took questions from the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce. While often their positions, such as in Young v. UPS and EEOC 
v. Abercrombie and Fitch, express different views than ours, we 
appreciate and learn from the dialog we're able to have. Further, 
although I believe we have a great story to tell in just about any 
area, we always welcome feedback and constructive criticism as an 
opportunity to improve our enforcement efforts. This is the only way we 
will become stronger and more effective.
                       efficient use of resources
    Last year, I was honored to be named by the National Law Journal as 
one of America's 50 Outstanding General Counsels, but that award really 
belongs to my dedicated colleagues at the EEOC who inspire me every 
day. I have seen up close and personal the unparalleled dedication and 
skill of these amazing civil servants. This award reflects the 
tremendous work of the program during an extremely challenging period 
when we endured a hiring freeze, significant attrition, and furloughs. 
Still, despite these particularly difficult times, we were able to 
continue to conduct a successful litigation program.
    I will share with you how we are working to ensure that we are 
putting public resources to good use in the challenging budget climate. 
More than 4 years ago, I talked about fostering a ``culture of 
collaboration.'' True to my pledge, I have cultivated ``One National 
Law Enforcement Agency,'' encouraging our litigators nationwide to 
operate more collaboratively and cohesively with each other and our 
internal partners. This collaboration is designed to address two 
problems often confronted by large, geographically dispersed 
organizations: (1) what I call ``the left hand, right hand'' problem, 
that is, coordination between the districts, and (2) ``the reinvention 
of the wheel'' problem, which is the result of not preserving 
institutional knowledge.
    I believe we have made great strides toward addressing these 
problems. The National Law Enforcement Agency approach is characterized 
by sharing ideas, best practices and lessons across districts, 
partnering between district offices to build synergy and provide 
sufficient human resources to cases, and leveraging technology to help 
us share ideas, work smarter and work more efficiently. We aim to 
operate as an integrated community. It is this integrated community 
approach that furthers the efficient use of resources, allows for 
innovation, and has contributed to many of the successes mentioned 
above.
                            closing comments
    In our 50th Anniversary year, I am going to close my testimony with 
a story illustrating the difference our work makes in the lives of 
American families. Recently, the Commission held an educational meeting 
to examine the ongoing problem of harassment in the workplace. The 
Commission highlighted our recent resolution of a race and national 
origin harassment case filed against an oil and gas well service 
business in Wyoming. A Charging Party from this case, who appeared as a 
witness at the meeting, recounted the following about what he 
experienced on the job:

          I started working at J&R as a mechanic in November 2007. My 
        first day on the job the Truck Pusher, who was second in 
        command in Edgerton, introduced me as ``uncle beaner'' . . . I 
        was shocked that he would say that to me. Having lived in 
        Albuquerque, NM for 40 years and Denver, CO for 10 years before 
        coming to Wyoming, I never experienced anything like that. For 
        this guy it was like nothing though. I was ``uncle beaner.'' 
        Mike was just ``beaner or half a beaner'' because he is only 
        half-Hispanic. We were both ``stupid Mexicans'' or ``dumb 
        Mexicans'' or ``worthless Mexicans.'' Sometimes he would switch 
        up and call us ``spics'' too. He told me at least once that he 
        didn't like ``spics'' and that Mexicans were the reason we have 
        swine flu. . . . He'd also just say stupid stuff like ``hey you 
        got any pesos.''

    We resolved the case for significant monetary relief--but just as 
importantly, for injunctive relief, including training and policy 
changes. The Charging Party suffered depression, but the experience was 
transformative for him and we believe the industry.
    He expressed,

          ``Now that it's all over, I am proud that we stood up for 
        ourselves, and I'm glad EEOC was able to help get things like 
        the training and the surveys as part of the settlement. And I 
        want to thank the Commission for letting me come out here to 
        Washington to tell my story. It means a lot to me. All I ever 
        wanted was to change how people were being treated, and 
        hopefully my coming here will help do that.''

    Thank you for your attention and I would be pleased to answer any 
questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Now we'll begin a round 
of questions.
    Mr. Lopez, I have a Craigslist ad here. It's posted by the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in its lawsuit against 
Texas Roadhouse. It says,

          ``If you believe you may have been denied a front of 
        the house position such as server, hostess, et cetera, 
        because of your age, or if you have information, please 
        contact the EEOC.''

    Why are you going out looking for plaintiffs and a lawsuit 
when you've got charges by 75,000 people filed with your agency 
who believe they have been discriminated against and they are 
unresolved? Wouldn't it be a better use of your 800 
investigators and 400 attorneys to focus on those 75,000 people 
instead of running Craigslist ads scouring up plaintiffs?
    Mr. Lopez. Let me start out with the Craigslist ad, 
Senator. We were in communication with your office, and we've 
done our due diligence. It's my understanding that we did not 
issue that ad, nor did we contract to have anybody issue that 
ad. So that is not our ad.
    But as to your question about expanding cases----
    The Chairman. Who were you in contact with? This has your 
e-mail address on [email protected].
    Mr. Lopez. I've been told that the communication was with 
another Republican office in the appropriator's office.
    The Chairman. What communication--what could you say about 
this, since it's your e-mail?
    Mr. Lopez. I checked with our office when we had the 
inquiry, and that is not an ad that we put out.
    The Chairman. Well, what----
    Mr. Lopez. It could be an ad that some other person put 
out, but that's not an ad that our office put out. That's what 
my office tells me.
    The Chairman. Is this your e-mail address--
texasroadhouse.law
[email protected]?
    Mr. Lopez. I think that is an EEOC address, yes. And that 
really goes to the whole----
    The Chairman. Well, how often do you use Craigslist to post 
searches for plaintiffs so that you can file a lawsuit? Do you 
do that in any other case?
    Mr. Lopez. As far as I know, we do not use Craigslist. But 
I do want to talk a little bit about looking for class members 
related to----
    The Chairman. No, let me go on to my next question. You're 
saying you didn't--this didn't come from the EEOC despite the 
fact that----
    Mr. Lopez. That's what I've been told by the attorneys on 
the case.
    The Chairman. If you could produce some evidence of that, 
I'd be grateful. Let me go on to another question. I read 
several examples of how you've been rebuked by courts in 
remarkably strong language for the quality or basic 
incompetence of the lawsuits you've been bringing, and you 
answered that somewhat.
    But take this recent case 2 months ago in Washington State. 
A fee award--EEOC demanded $25 million each from two 
defendants. The court said you had failed to conduct an 
adequate investigation, pursued a frivolous theory, sought 
frivolous remedies, disregarded the need to have a factual 
basis to assert a plausible basis. Don't you find this whole 
series of court rebukes to your attorneys and your lawsuits 
embarrassing?
    Mr. Lopez. I think that we had discussed that the last time 
I was here. With respect to the case----
    The Chairman. Well, that's why I'm so surprised that you're 
continuing to use--for example, a witness that we talked about 
the last time you were here--you used a faulty witness that the 
court rebuked you for, and then you continued the case.
    Mr. Lopez. Well, let me first address the first case. The 
first case--there is a district court opinion. But I would 
certainly counsel caution with respect to cases by the district 
court.
    As you know, the EEOC had been rebuked before in a case 
called Cintas and a case called CRST. In the Cintas case, the 
fee award was reversed in its entirety. In CRST, which 
generated a lot of negative attention for the Commission, the 
court also recently vacated the fee award. So the first case 
that you mentioned is still in litigation. It's still pending.
    The Chairman. But you don't deny that--you just say the 
judge was wrong about that?
    Mr. Lopez. I mean, it's a case where final judgment hasn't 
been issued. So it's still in the process of litigation, and we 
have to look at that.
    The Chairman. You went to a very good law school. I mean, 
if your professor told you things like that, would you just 
dismiss it?
    Mr. Lopez. Of course not. I'm not dismissing your concerns, 
Senator, and I think----
    Mr. Chairman. I'm not a professor. I'm talking about the 
judge.
    Mr. Lopez. As I mentioned in my opening statement, any fee 
award is one fee award too many, and it's something that we 
take very seriously. With respect to the case you mentioned 
about the expert witness, for instance, the EEOC has looked at 
the way that it worked with the expert witness, its own 
internal protocols in terms of contracting with expert 
witnesses and in terms of making sure that we have enough eyes 
on the expert witness reports.
    But one thing I want to say with respect to the portion of 
the concurring opinion that you read, which I think sort of 
leaves a misimpression, is that the witness that we used in 
that case was used concurrently at the same time as he was in 
the other case that you mentioned. So it wasn't like we were 
rebuked in one case and we went back and used the witness. Both 
those cases were pending at the same time.
    The other thing that I think is worth mentioning about that 
case is that even though the panel did not accept the 
admissibility of our expert testimony, the panel expressly 
stated in a footnote that the decision did not go to the merits 
of the case. So, basically, that issue in that case was an 
evidentiary issue in terms of how we--whether we were able to 
establish a prima facie case of disparate impact. The district 
court said we did not, and the appellate court affirmed. But 
that certainly has generated a lot of attention within the 
program in terms of how we work with experts, in terms of how 
we do this work.
    We don't want--we want to get good enforcement results. 
That's why we do this work. So when something like that 
happens, it captures our attention, and we look at, I think, as 
a culture how we can do things better to make sure that we 
don't repeat those results.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Murray.
    Senator Murray. Well, thank you for being with us today, 
Chair Yang, and welcome back to the committee for your first 
appearance as chair. The EEOC's backlog of cases and the amount 
of time it takes to resolve complaints are real issues. The 
erosion of staff due to budget cuts under sequestration and the 
government shutdown did not help the situation. But I wanted to 
ask you what does EEOC need to address those problems, and how 
can Congress help?
    Ms. Yang. Thank you, Senator Murray. You've summarized some 
of the challenges we have had very accurately. We have had over 
3 years of hiring freezes, which brought us to our lowest 
number of investigators in 25 years.
    So what we've been doing is rebuilding capacity. The 
funding that we received in fiscal year 2014 mid-year allowed 
us to launch a mid-year hiring effort. We've brought on over 
116 new investigators and a dozen mediators. We want to 
continue that hiring, because that is one of our most effective 
ways to ensure we are timely investigating charges.
    I share your concern that justice delayed is justice 
denied, and it benefits all parties, the employer, the 
employee, and our agency, to ensure we are acting quickly. So, 
in addition, we are working on effective case management 
systems. We just launched a digital charge system. We piloted 
it in 11 offices, and we're getting good feedback from 
employers.
    So far, our first step is to allow employers to communicate 
and submit documents with the agency electronically. We'll be 
expanding that to allow employees to upload information as well 
and for them to be able to check the status of their charge and 
other things online. That will free up our investigators' time 
to ensure we are more quickly investigating these charges.
    And we are firmly committed to early resolution. I 
mentioned earlier that our mediation settlement and 
conciliation efforts are where the bulk of our work is done, 
and we're continuing to improve on our processes to increase 
our success.
    Senator Murray. Thank you. We have heard some concerns 
expressed about multiparty litigation and about litigation 
where the EEOC initiates an investigation of discrimination or 
equal pay using its own authority. Can either of you give us 
some recent examples of those types of cases and what the 
Commission's actions in those cases have meant for victims of 
discrimination?
    Ms. Yang. Well, why don't I start, and I'll give some 
background, and then I'll turn it over to our General Counsel. 
We use our commissioner charge authority very carefully. A 
number of our statutes allow the Commission to initiate 
investigations where we learn of a problem. But the bulk of our 
work is actually done on individual charges.
    Where we learn of a problem, we can issue a commissioner's 
charge, and let me break down how we use that. Seventy-five 
percent of the time, we use a commissioner's charge where we 
actually have an existing charge. But during the course of the 
investigation, we learn additional information that perhaps 
this is a broader policy than was stated in the charge. It may 
be nationwide. It may affect other affiliates. So we then issue 
a commissioner charge to put the employer on notice of the 
scope of our investigation.
    Other times, we may be investigating race discrimination, 
for example, and we learn about religious discrimination. So we 
file a commissioner's charge again to put the employer on 
notice of the scope of the investigation. That's a way for us 
to use our resources most efficiently to address the problems 
as we're seeing them and to put our resources where we can have 
the greatest impact. So where we have commissioner charges, 
we're really doing it to ensure that we're addressing a real 
problem that we see.
    Another 10 percent of the commissioner charges are brought 
to us by individuals who are afraid to file a charge because of 
fear of retaliation. But where they're providing us credible 
information--for example, an individual came forward from a 
national homebuilder and reported concerns of a policy that the 
employer would not allow African-Americans to work in white 
communities and would not hire them for those communities. She 
was unfortunately forced to resign as a result of that 
complaint.
    But during the course of our investigation, we identified a 
problem with promotions for African-Americans and women. So we 
issued a commissioner charge in that situation to put the 
employer on notice of the scope of the investigation.
    The remaining 15 percent of our commissioner charges come 
to us from a variety of sources. Sometimes other Federal 
agencies, during the course of their work, identify a problem 
that affects our statutes, so they will refer to us. Other 
times, we may have a third party charge, such as in the case of 
Henry's Turkeys, which you may be familiar with, where a 
relative of one of the intellectually disabled individuals 
involved came forward to report that violation.
    Mr. Lopez. And if I could just give an example from 
litigation, we were involved in litigation with a temporary 
staffing firm. During the course of litigation, we discovered 
that there were employers that were making sex-specific 
staffing requests--do not send over women.
    So based on that information, one of the commissioners 
issued a charge, and that case actually turned into litigation, 
a hiring discrimination case against a company in Cleveland 
where we discovered that the company, in fact, had hired few, 
if any, women. As a result of that charge, we were able to 
settle the case. They were able to change their hiring 
procedures and hire women--of course, this is in the 21st 
century--hire women, and also made a commitment that they would 
hire some of the women that they had rejected.
    So it was a really good resolution that we would not have 
been able to achieve but for the fact of the commissioner's 
charge, because the women who were deprived of the position--
they didn't know. They didn't know that they were deprived of 
the position because of sex. They didn't know that they were 
almost being categorically excluded because of sex.
    Senator Murray. I understand, and I'm over my time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
    Senator Roberts.
    Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, I was afraid you were going 
to do that.
    The Chairman. Would you like for me to go to Senator 
Warren?
    Senator Roberts. Yes, sir. That would be very helpful.
    The Chairman. I can do that. Actually, it's--I'm sorry. I 
was out of order, Senator Warren. Senator Franken was the next 
Senator in order.
    Senator Franken.

                      Statement of Senator Franken

    Senator Franken. Thank you, Senator Roberts and Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chair Yang, it's very nice to see you again, and I'm very 
pleased to see my former senior counsel, Peach Soltis, who I'm 
sure is doing as great a job at the EEOC as she did when she 
worked for me. We miss you Peach.
    Now, we've talked about your agency's limited resources. 
You say in your written testimony that the EEOC receives nearly 
10 times as many charges as you did in 1965. Just last year, 
you received nearly 90,000 charges, and you continue to face a 
backlog, as the chairman has spoken about, that can sometimes 
lead to lengthy delays to resolve complaints which often places 
employers and workers in limbo for extended periods of time.
    Can you speak to how you are balancing the agency's 
resources to achieve the agency's goal and to reduce your 
backlog?
    Ms. Yang. Thank you, Senator Franken, for that question and 
for letting us have Peach. She has done a tremendous job for us 
at the EEOC.
    Senator Franken. I apparently had no choice.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Yang. Well, we appreciate it. We take our 
responsibility----
    Senator Franken. I think you could have gone after me if I 
had refused to let her go.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Yang. We take our responsibility to use our resources 
strategically very seriously. One of the things we've done as a 
commission is issue a strategic enforcement plan which sets out 
six national priorities that helps to focus our work. This 
includes areas like systemic recruitment and hiring 
discrimination, because that's an area where the government can 
have an important impact, because often people do not know why 
they weren't hired.
    And because we are receiving charges from around the 
country, we can then start to see patterns of discrimination 
that are developing. So we are working to ensure that as the 
charges come in, we are using our resources effectively. We're 
assessing the issue. We have to investigate each charge. But we 
need to use those resources where we can do the greatest good.
    That is a constant balance and a challenge for the agency, 
and I do believe we're making progress. With the additional 
hires that we have, we are beginning to see an improvement this 
quarter in the rate at which we can process charges. That means 
that we're giving individuals and companies resolutions 
earlier.
    I mentioned earlier our commitment to our voluntary 
resolutions. Before I joined the agency, I actually did not 
realize how much of the agency's work was done through 
voluntary resolutions, and that's primarily because most of 
those resolutions are confidential. People don't appreciate how 
significant they are, because you mostly hear about our 
litigation.
    Senator Franken. Are there ever any cases where you go to 
somebody, and there's bias in their hiring practices, and you 
point this out to them, and they say, ``Oh, my goodness, you're 
right,'' and that's it, and then they change?
    Ms. Yang. We are able to exchange information. We will, 
during the course of the investigation as well as our 
conciliation process, share with the employer the evidence that 
we believe supports the violation, and often employers will 
recognize that.
    Senator Franken. So, you're required to conciliate with 
businesses.
    Ms. Yang. Yes. We are required to conciliate. We take that 
responsibility seriously.
    Senator Franken. And when that happens, how often do 
employers say, ``I did not realize we do this,'' or ``This is a 
practice that just is cultural at our--that's been cultural, we 
thank you,'' and then they change?
    Ms. Yang. We settle over 1,000, on average, charges through 
conciliation each year. We resolve through mediations, even 
earlier, over 70 percent of the charges in our mediation 
program, which totals about 11,000. And then we settle cases 
along the investigation. So it does happen quite often.
    I believe most employers are trying to do the right thing. 
They want to comply with the law. When they see that there's a 
problem, they're trying to fix it.
    Senator Franken. Good.
    Mr. Lopez, we've heard a lot of criticism about the EEOC's 
``runaway litigation'' program and the rebukes that you've 
received in some high profile losses. I just want to give you 
an opportunity to respond to some of your critics. Can you 
describe the EEOC's litigation program, how you decide which 
cases the EEOC will litigate, and what policy or guidelines are 
in place about the cases you refer to the Commission for 
approval?
    Mr. Lopez. Sure. The cases that have been discussed with 
respect to litigation failures or rebukes are really the cases 
that keep me up at night also. That's really the essence of my 
job, because we have an obligation to the public, to the 
taxpayers, and we have very dedicated and committed people 
committed to the idea of equal opportunity.
    But I want to really put these cases in the broader 
context. That's why I started by talking about how 93 percent 
of our cases are resolved successfully. And I started by 
talking about just the overwhelming success of our trial 
program, which means that when we get an opportunity to tell 
the story of discrimination to a cross section of the public in 
the district, then we've been very successful. And it's 
something that I think all of us are proud of.
    With respect to the selection of cases, I think, as you 
know, the Commission has a strategic enforcement plan which 
sets forth enforcement priorities. And that is certainly, 
partly the guide for us in terms of trying to decide which 
cases would have the most law enforcement impact--those 
priorities.
    All of the districts also have their own priorities because 
they have different demographics and different industries in 
those districts. So they're really focused on making a 
difference within the local communities that they serve.
    Certain cases have to go to the Commission for litigation 
approval. So cases such as the cases that Senator Alexander 
mentioned involving a large--a significant requirement of 
resources--those need to go to the Commission. Cases likely to 
generate public controversy--those have to go to the 
Commission. Cases where the Commission has not weighed in on 
policy--those have to go to the Commission. And, recently, when 
the Commission reaffirmed delegation in its strategic 
enforcement plan, it also included a requirement that one case 
from each district go to the Commission.
    Senator Franken. Well, thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken.
    Senator Scott.

                       Statement of Senator Scott

    Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Lopez, we heard from Senator Alexander earlier about 
the fact that there are 75,000 claims in your backlog. We hear 
very consistently that there are limited resources. We have 
heard of judicial rebukes.
    But yet there seems to be a consistent pattern of looking 
for something else to do other than the 75,000 claims in your 
backlog, where there are no claimants, nobody stepping forward 
saying they've been harmed, and yet you guys are investing very 
precious limited resources that the taxpayers of our country 
continue to provide and make available because they're 
compelled to do so.
    Whether it's Deloitte or, as we've heard recently, the 
Texas Roadhouse situation, I just don't understand how it is 
that we refuse to take a look at the 75,000 claims in your 
backlog and go proactively after folks where there are no 
claimants and no one coming forward asking for help, especially 
and specifically in Deloitte, the same as--I think it was KPMG 
and PWC.
    Why not invest your limited resources, in taking care of 
the taxpayers' dollars, in the cases where we know that someone 
has stepped forward and said that they have been discriminated 
against versus looking for places to use your very limited 
resources?
    Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Senator. And if you don't mind, this 
might be--we might share the answer, because part of your 
question goes to the investigative side of the Commission. I 
just talked a little bit about one of the few cases that we 
brought that involved either a commissioner's charge or a 
directed investigation. It's really only a small fraction of 
cases that we bring where there isn't actually a charge.
    But the case I mentioned, I think, is a pretty compelling 
case involving an employer's absolute failure and refusal to 
hire women in the 21st century. The other case that the chair 
mentioned was Henry's Turkeys, which was just an absolutely 
horrifying situation involving 32 intellectually disabled 
workers who were really not well positioned to bring charges on 
their own. And that's another one where there weren't specific 
charges.
    So I think both of those cases really further the public 
interest in terms of fighting discrimination and preventing 
discrimination in the future. So with respect to litigation, 
it's a small fraction, and those are the types of cases that 
I'm talking about.
    Senator Scott. How about the Deloitte case or the Texas 
Roadhouse case? My thought is when you don't ask the question 
of age on the application, how is it that we determine that 
they're not hiring someone over a certain age?
    Mr. Lopez. Texas Roadhouse is a case that is currently in 
litigation. There's a lot of information in that case about the 
type of evidence of age discrimination and nationwide age 
discrimination in that case. That includes, very significant, 
we allege, statistical disparities, but, very importantly, it 
includes some pretty compelling anecdotal evidence, and I can 
go through what some of that anecdotal evidence looks like, if 
you want me to, in terms of talking about what----
    Senator Scott. I know that my minute and 24 seconds are 
heading down to zero very quickly. I'd ask this question. When 
you talked about the statistical variations--is that what you 
said?
    Mr. Lopez. Statistical disparities.
    Senator Scott. So if there is not a claimant that comes 
forward, and if you just study the stats, you come to the 
conclusion that that disparity must be discriminatory in nature 
and baked into the operations?
    Mr. Lopez. No. Usually there's other evidence, like 
anecdotal evidence. In Texas Roadhouse, for instance, there are 
comments that are in our complaint that indicated that Texas 
Roadhouse favored younger people for front-of-the-house 
positions.
    Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman, I'll just use my time--
unfortunately, I didn't get to Ms. Yang during my time period.
    I will tell you that over this weekend, I had an 
opportunity to travel to four different States--or I think it 
was three States--and visited several restaurants, just to take 
a look at their front operations. And I will tell you that 
having visited half a dozen, maybe more, restaurants, they all 
appear the same on the front end.
    When you look at the Texas Roadhouse specific case, without 
any information that is actually gathered from an application 
process, I would like to hear the anecdotal--if we have time, 
Mr. Chairman--information, and/or please provide it to my 
office so I can have a better understanding of what it takes to 
get to where you are in spite of someone coming forward and 
asking for it.
    Mr. Lopez. Yes, we'd be happy to provide the complaint, 
which really lays out the anecdotal evidence.
    Senator Scott. That would be great.
    Mr. Lopez. Thanks.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Scott.
    Senator Murphy.

                      Statement of Senator Murphy

    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think 
it's worthwhile to just spend a few minutes on this case that's 
been cited a few times, the Hill County Farms case. This is a 
case where dozens of intellectually disabled men were 
essentially in prisons, for all intents and purposes, for years 
and years and years. Supervisors hit, kicked, handcuffed, and 
verbally abused the men, and they were paid $2 a day. These 
were not workers that had the ability to bring their own case 
to the EEOC.
    So the consequence of a paradigm shift in which the only 
cases that you're allowed to review are cases that are brought 
to you effectively renders individuals like this absolutely 
helpless. I assume you would agree that your mission involves 
bringing cases, maybe even more importantly, in the cases where 
people don't have the ability to bring a case for themselves. 
And you do it on a very limited basis, in fact. I mean, we're 
talking about--you can tell me the number, but it's dozens of 
cases, not hundreds of cases that get brought in this fashion. 
But the precedent that that would send to employers, I would 
imagine, could be incredibly harmful.
    Mr. Lopez. Yes, thank you. It's important to remember that 
both the Commission's charge and directed investigation 
authority are statutory tools. Those are tools created by 
Congress, and these are tools that have been used by the 
Commission since as long as I've been there, which is since 
1998. And they are tools that were endorsed by the Commission 
in its systemic task force report which came out in 2006 under 
the leadership of Chair Cari Dominguez.
    So there hasn't really been any type of departure from our 
ordinary practice in these areas to speak of. But I think that 
the Hill County Farms case and the other case involving the 
exclusion of women are both just very, very good examples about 
why these tools are absolutely necessary for us to enforce the 
law in a way that, really, private litigants can't do, because 
in a hiring discrimination case, Senator, for the most part, 
the victims do not know that they've been subject to hiring 
discrimination.
    You'd be surprised that there are some who do, but for the 
most part, the employers don't say that we're not hiring you 
because of X, Y, and Z. And it really takes a tool like the 
commissioner's charge and us finding information, you know, 
with the temp agency, about sex-specific requests, to get at 
that type of discrimination.
    Senator Murphy. Do you have a number on how many of these 
cases you bring on an annual basis?
    Mr. Lopez. I think the number that we provided during my 
tenure is 12, but I'll check that. I think it's 12 cases that 
we brought, which is just a very small fraction.
    Senator Murphy. I think that's a really important context. 
We're talking about 12 cases that have been brought----
    Mr. Lopez. Yes.
    Senator Murphy [continuing]. Without applicant, systemic 
cases. Do you have a ball park as to how many of these cases 
have been decided in favor of the employees?
    Mr. Lopez. I think almost all of them have. I think most of 
them were resolved early, and there's a subset of those cases 
that involve challenges to age discriminatory pension plans 
that have resolved early.
    Senator Murphy. I think it would be a great thing for 
employers if you stopped filing systemic lawsuits, because you 
win them, and it provides an incentive and, frankly, an 
advertisement for employers to conduct themselves in a way in 
which, so long as their employees don't know that 
discrimination is taking place or they are treated in such a 
way that they have no means of redress--and that happens in a 
variety of ways. Maybe it's outright abuse, as happened in 
Iowa.
    But there are other ways in which you can just make clear 
that the consequences of taking action are so serious that it 
shelves people's interest in doing it. I think that might be a 
wonderful thing in the end for employers.
    But this is a very limited use of power that has happened 
over the course of Republican and Democratic administrations. 
Nothing is changed by way of your use of this statutory 
allowance to bring systemic cases. What has changed is the 
number of cases that you are getting from applicants and the 
declining resources that you have to address those increasing 
numbers of cases. That's what's changed. What has not changed 
is your continued reservation of the power to go after cases 
when employees may not be able to do it themselves.
    Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
    Senator Roberts.

                      Statement of Senator Roberts

    Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
your diligence.
    Obviously, EEOC is an important component of ensuring equal 
opportunity. But, like others have stated--the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina and our chairman--I am concerned 
that you all have strayed from your core mission, and the 
75,000 individual complaints that are waiting on action will 
fall through the cracks because of investigations brought on by 
the agenda.
    The chairperson has indicated, if I have my notes correct, 
90,000--I can't read my writing. Help me out--you said 90,000 
changes?
    Ms. Yang. Charges, nearly 90,000 charges this past fiscal 
year.
    Senator Roberts. Charges. And then you are trying to 
balance the strategic plan. I have the strategic plan here--
eliminating barriers in recruiting and hiring, protecting 
immigrant, migrant, and other vulnerable workers; addressing 
emerging and developing issues--that's sort of nebulous--
enforcing equal pay laws--that's not nebulous--preserving 
access to the legal system--that's certainly is not nebulous.
    By the way, on the access to the legal system--is that 
provided to the 75,000 that are still waiting?
    Ms. Yang. Excuse me?
    Senator Roberts. Is this goal of preserving access to the 
legal system--is that applicable to the 75,000 that are still 
waiting?
    Ms. Yang. We do believe access to the legal system is 
important, and I do believe that justice delayed can be justice 
denied. So that is an important priority for the agency to 
ensure we are timely investigating our charges.
    Senator Roberts. Then the sixth one was preventing 
harassment through system enforcement and targeted outreach. 
But you went on a little bit further than that and said that 
this strategic plan, adopted in 2012 to be implemented, 
represents national priorities, a national priority system, 
with regards to systemic behavior.
    Systemic behavior is a pretty serious disease. Systemic 
behavior means that there are behaviors out there that you 
obviously view, with these six kinds of things, that you need 
to address first, as opposed to the 75,000, and that there's a 
pattern of discrimination, as determined by your goals here or 
your strategic plan.
    I'm not sure that's correct. I do not have the background 
that you have or the expertise to make that statement. But it 
seems to me like you are an agency looking for patterns of 
discrimination, as opposed to taking up action on the 75,000 
individual complaints that are waiting.
    My question is why, if you did not take up the 75,000 
people that are waiting, would that not reflect the same kind 
of patterns of discrimination that you are addressing in the 
2012 plan?
    Ms. Yang. I appreciate the concern that you're raising 
about how we're using our resources, and I'd like to tell you a 
little bit more about how we're doing that. We right now have 
548 investigators. Last year, they investigated 87,000 charges. 
So we aren't letting those 77,000 charges sit. We are actively 
investigating those charges.
    But during the same year, we received an additional over--
maybe--over 88,000 new charges. So we keep getting new charges 
in. Our investigators are working to resolve those charges. We 
are focusing our resources where we think the government can 
have the greatest good. So we're looking at what the larger 
problems are, because we want to understand how to help 
employers change those practices and prevent discrimination 
going forward.
    Systemic harassment is an area that we see consistently. So 
we have formed an anti-harassment task force led by 
Commissioner Lipnic and Commissioner Feldblum to look at the 
root causes. The most frequent kind of harassment we see is 
race discrimination, followed by disability harassment, and 
then third is sexual harassment.
    We want to understand what are the risk factors in the 
workplace that are causing those problems so we can look more 
comprehensively at solutions, because we know that simply 
litigating and investigating is not going to prevent the 
problem because we continue to see these cases around the 
country, and we want to help employers prevent it.
    Senator Roberts. In the 33 seconds I have left, is there a 
way that you could determine with the three that you just 
mentioned--determining systemic behavior and the cost of that, 
in other words, going out and trying to determine nationally 
what the patterns of discrimination are, and then the cost of 
cleaning up, if you possibly can--but you've indicated that 
you've got 80,000 next year--but at least try to get that 
number down on the 75,000.
    I still think that if you went through the 75,000, you 
would find the same kind of systemic behavior and patterns of 
discrimination that you would--rather than going looking for 
it.
    Ms. Yang. Right, and often we do. We investigate individual 
charges. Sometimes we'll have 50 or 70 charges against the same 
employer. So we look at what is the consistent problem that 
we're seeing----
    Senator Roberts. That's pretty systemic.
    Ms. Yang [continuing]. So we can prevent it from getting 
more charges, right, because if we can help improve the 
practice, then we won't have the discrimination. So that's why 
we're trying to use our resources strategically to identify the 
problem and fix it. Otherwise, we can get relief for one 
person, but we're going to have more coming down the pipeline.
    Senator Roberts. Is there any yardstick as to the cost of 
what you're doing on one hand as opposed to what I have talked 
about with the 70,000?
    Ms. Yang. About 25 percent of our of our cases right now 
are systemic cases. Seventy-five percent are not. That's the 
balance that we were aiming for with our resources. It is the 
highest percentage of systemic cases that we've had, because we 
see it as an effective use of our resources.
    Senator Roberts. Where do you think that's heading, 50-50 
someplace?
    Ms. Yang. We set targets, and we think that's a good 
balance of our resources, because the systemic cases take more 
resources, and we need to be very careful about how we invest 
in them.
    Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
    Now Senator Warren.

                      Statement of Senator Warren

    Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    According to the 2013 census data, women make less than men 
in 333 out of 342 job categories. That's 97 percent of major 
occupations. A 2014 analysis published in the Harvard Business 
Review found that black and Hispanic workers consistently make 
less than their white and Asian colleagues. A 2015 AARP report 
shows that older unemployed workers spend longer looking for a 
job than their younger counterparts. So we've got age, gender, 
race. A reasonable person would say that we have work to do 
when it comes to workplace discrimination.
    Now, the EEOC helps tens of thousands of individuals every 
year who file charges of discrimination in the workplace. But 
thousands more benefit from the results of the systemic program 
which tries to root out discrimination that affects entire 
classes of workers.
    Back in 2006, Commissioner Silverman, who was appointed by 
President Bush, concluded--and I want to quote here--``EEOC is 
uniquely equipped to combat systemic discrimination.'' And he 
made that a top priority for the EEOC.
    So, Chair Yang, my question for you is whether the EEOC's 
current focus on systemic investigations is new or if it's just 
a continuation of the policy begun during the Bush 
administration.
    Ms. Yang. Thank you, Senator Warren. Our systemic work is 
an important part of the agency's work, and as you recognized, 
it has been continuing. The systemic task force in 2006 
recommended that we invest more of our resources on systemic 
cases because we can have a greater impact, and it's a 
particularly important role for the government to play.
    They also emphasized that it is important for us to use the 
commissioner charge and directed investigation process so that 
we are proactively identifying the greatest needs for our 
resources, rather than simply being reactive, because we know 
that for every person that comes forward, there are many others 
who may not know they're being discriminated against or are 
afraid to do so.
    Senator Warren. So let's push on this a little. As part of 
your efforts to combat systemic discrimination, the EEOC has 
been criticized for using its authority to initiate 
investigations without a specific complaint from a specific 
worker who is directly affected. But looking at the same data 
that the General Counsel looked at, I noted that of the nearly 
900 cases filed on the merits since 2010, only 12 were based on 
investigations initiated by EEOC, or just slightly over 1 
percent.
    So, Chair Yang, let's focus on that 1 percent. In those few 
cases where the EEOC brings its own action without a specific 
employee complaint, is the Commission just duplicating what 
individuals should be doing on their own, or are there specific 
reasons why you needed to investigate and initiate these 
investigations?
    Ms. Yang. There's a particularly important role the 
government plays because, as I mentioned earlier, often 
individuals do not fully appreciate that they may be subjected 
to discrimination. We see that a lot with hiring, also with 
pay, where people do not necessarily know what other people are 
paid.
    But we can see from some of the charge information and our 
directed investigation authority where there may be a larger 
problem. So we are using that as a way to invest our resources 
to address the larger problem.
    Senator Warren. There's been much talk, though, about the 
backlog that you face. I note that back in 1980, the EEOC had 
more than 3,000 people working to enforce non-discrimination 
laws. Since then, the American workforce has expanded by nearly 
50 million workers, but the number of people at EEOC who are 
there to enforce non-discrimination laws has been cut by more 
than 1,000 workers.
    With the number of employees down by a third, how has the 
EEOC's ability to launch important systemic investigations been 
affected?
    Ms. Yang. That's an important question, and we think 
carefully about how to use our resources. With the limited 
resources we have, investing in systemic cases can be one of 
the most effective ways for us to use those resources, because 
instead of separately investigating 50 different charges, we 
can try to affect that practice at issue to ensure that we are 
preventing discrimination from going forward.
    So we are carefully identifying the cases that we are going 
to file, because we know they take significant resources. But 
through those efforts, we are working to bring about lasting 
change that can help the employer build a stronger workplace 
and become more productive as a result.
    Senator Warren. Thank you. You know, I wish we didn't have 
to be here today discussing the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, because I wish the EEOC wasn't necessary. I wish 
that all Americans could apply for jobs and go to work, 
confident that they would not be passed over because of their 
age, confident that they wouldn't get lower pay because of 
their gender, confident that they wouldn't get worse hours 
because they're African-American, and confident that they 
wouldn't be retaliated against when they ask for equal 
treatment.
    But all the independent evidence shows us that we are not 
there yet. Until we get there, our continued efforts to address 
this issue are an important part of who we are as a people. We 
have more work to do, including passing long overdue LGBT anti-
discrimination legislation so the EEOC can better protect 
people who face discrimination in the workplace because of 
sexual orientation.
    But at a minimum, we can encourage the EEOC to do the work 
it can to protect every working American and make sure that we 
all have equal opportunities on the job. Thank you very much 
for your work.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
    Senator Murray, before we conclude, do you have any other 
questions or comments?
    Senator Murray. I just have a couple. Thank you.
    Chair Yang, I know it is a priority for you to prevent 
discrimination before it happens. Can you tell us more about 
how, as chair, you intend to engage in education and outreach 
efforts to help that?
    Ms. Yang. Thank you for that question. Education and 
outreach is a critical part of our work. One of the things that 
we've been doing, particularly under our strategic enforcement 
plan, is to integrate our outreach and education around the 
country so that our offices are focusing on some of the 
persistent issues that we see, and we can reach out to 
particular regions or occupations where we're seeing a problem 
so that they understand where they can do better in complying 
with the law and so we can understand where there are some 
problems for employers in complying, and we can figure out how 
to better assist them.
    Senator Murray. You talked a little bit earlier about 
conciliation, Mr. Lopez. I know that's an important tool for 
EEOC to help resolve discrimination cases. So it's really 
important that it's done right. And I want to ask you do you 
provide guidance to your enforcement staff on how to conduct 
conciliations?
    Mr. Lopez. Well, I want to place this in the context of the 
way we're structured. The investigative side is responsible for 
conducting the conciliations, and only after a case fails 
conciliation will it become legal. Our lawyers are involved in 
providing counseling in the process in terms of trying to help 
get to good resolutions in the conciliation process really in a 
sort of advisory role. But most of the work is really done at 
the other end of the Commission.
    Senator Murray. Chair Yang.
    Ms. Yang. We do provide guidance to our investigators on 
the conciliation process, and we're working to provide 
additional guidance in light of Mach Mining so that our 
investigators understand that even though the review is 
limited--the court, you know, in Mach Mining said the review of 
our process is limited--we want to emphasize that our efforts 
to conciliate will not be limited, because it remains a very 
important way in which we can resolve cases early, get relief, 
get changes to the practice, rather than being embroiled in 
years of litigation.
    So that's an important area for us that we're going to be 
continuing to educate our staff on. We have a unit in 
headquarters that goes out to the field to audit the process. 
We audited over 20 different offices last year, and they review 
the process. They look at the conciliation efforts to ensure 
that they're adequate, and, on a regular basis, supervisors in 
those field offices are reviewing the conciliation process, 
because it's required to be documented. So we're ensuring that 
our staff understands what we expect of them to ensure that we 
are using this process as productively as possible.
    Senator Murray. But what is the recent record on 
conciliation?
    Ms. Yang. We have had a very successful success record. 
We've brought it up, actually, by 40 percent since fiscal year 
2010 where we were at a 27 percent success rate. Now we are at 
a 38 percent success rate, and we have had even higher 
percentages in other years. So it's a significant part of our 
work.
    Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
    I have several other questions, but I'll submit most of 
them for the record, if I may, if you all will respond to them.
    Let me ask three of them quickly.
    No. 1, Mr. Lopez, I understand you issue a press release 
when EEOC sues an employer. Do you take down the press release 
if you lose the case?
    Mr. Lopez. I am not really in charge of that, but we 
probably should, yes.
    The Chairman. Will you do that?
    Mr. Lopez. It's not really my line of authority, but I 
would recommend----
    The Chairman. Whose is it?
    Mr. Lopez. It would be----
    Ms. Yang. That would be mine, and we will certainly look at 
that. I appreciate that concern, yes.
    The Chairman. But if you lose the case, shouldn't you take 
down the press release? We know of five examples where you--I 
mean, it's embarrassing to an employer to be sued, and if the 
court finds against you, it seems to me the fair thing to do is 
take it down.
    Ms. Yang. I'm glad you raised that issue. I will certainly 
look into it, and we will be happy to report back to you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Yang, under your procedures, I believe the General 
Counsel is required to submit to the Commission a case that has 
a high likelihood of creating public controversy. Is that 
right?
    Ms. Yang. Correct.
    The Chairman. And there are significant concerns with your 
investigation of accounting firms and their voluntary 
partnership agreements initiated without a complaint. Do you 
believe the Commission should vote prior to commencing 
litigation against Deloitte, KPMG, or any future case alleging 
age discrimination in a partnership agreement?
    Ms. Yang. Thank you for raising that issue. I know it's 
been one of interest to many. I can't comment specifically on 
any particular investigation. But I would expect that if the 
General Counsel were to recommend litigation on that issue, it 
would be something that would come up to the Commission. We 
take seriously----
    The Chairman. Wouldn't you think six congressional hearings 
would constitute a public controversy?
    Ms. Yang. I would. I would agree with that.
    The Chairman. Then if your procedure is that you should 
consider cases that create a public controversy, why wouldn't 
the answer be yes, that if you----
    Ms. Yang. Well, yes. I do expect that that would be the 
case. That is true.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And the other one--we've talked a 
lot about employee wellness, and I'll detail my question to 
you. But the proposed rule that you put out in April, to me, 
doesn't solve the problem. This is something that most of us--
I'm always hesitant to speak about the Affordable Care Act and 
say most of us, because we disagree on much of it. But most of 
us and the President like the idea of encouraging employees to 
lead a healthy lifestyle by their employers offering a 
financial reward.
    Three of the President's departments wrote regulations 
according to the Affordable Care Act that many employers 
followed. EEOC came along with a rule that conflicted. You've 
tried to fix that, but, in my view, it doesn't fix it, and you 
even exceed your jurisdiction and authority by limiting to 30 
percent the premium that an employer may charge.
    Without going into too much detail, I've introduced 
legislation to try to reaffirm existing law and to try to clear 
up the confusion. Will you please commit to looking at my 
legislation as a way forward for the EEOC as the Commission 
drafts a final rule and taking it into account as you look at 
your options?
    Ms. Yang. Certainly. We, as you know, have a process of 
public comment, and we are looking to hear feedback from all 
sources to ensure that we make the rule as good as it can be. 
We worked hard to design a workable rule that balances the 
interests of the ADA with the Affordable Care Act as it amends 
HIPAA, and we worked closely with the other Federal agencies 
charged with enforcing the ACA to create a rule that could work 
for companies to promote wellness.
    I've talked to many companies who are investing a lot of 
resources in wellness programs because they truly believe in 
improving their employees' health. And we want to be able to 
support those efforts.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you. And please keep in mind that 
the committee and the Congress that passed the Affordable Care 
Act included many of the same people that passed the ADA, and 
the Affordable Care Act came last. So if you were to defer to 
the Congress and the President that acted last in this area, I 
think you would have to conclude broad latitude for employers 
in employee wellness programs.
    The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. We thank 
the witnesses for joining us today. Members may submit 
additional information and questions for the record within that 
time if they would like.
    The committee will stand adjourned.
    [Additional material follows.]

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

       Prepared Statement of the National Restaurant Association

    Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, thank you for holding 
this hearing and providing critical oversight on the EEOC's current 
questionable and controversial enforcement and litigation practices. My 
name is Angelo Amador and I am senior vice-president and regulatory 
counsel at the National Restaurant Association.
    Our Association is the leading business representative for the 
restaurant and food service industry. The industry is comprised of 1 
million restaurant and food service outlets employing 14 million 
people--about 10 percent of the U.S. workforce. Restaurants are job 
creators and the Nation's second-largest private-sector employer. 
Despite its size, small businesses dominate the industry; even larger 
chains are often collections of smaller franchised businesses.
    Our Association and its members understand the valuable function 
the EEOC plays in maintaining a bias-free workplace. However, we have 
serious concerns about some of the EEOC's current actions. For example, 
the lack of transparency by the EEOC creates immeasurable difficulties 
for companies as they attempt to defend themselves in litigation. In 
addition, the EEOC is making significant--and sometimes controversial--
policy changes by issuing ``guidelines'' without the publication and 
comment period that would be required if they followed the formal 
regulatory process.
    Two of the EEOC's unusual and novel legal theories have proven 
costly for employers who are increasingly targeted by the EEOC. First, 
a few years ago, I started hearing from members about EEOC harassing 
techniques over the use of background checks, in some cases, as has 
been pointed out, ``the same type of background checks that the EEOC 
itself uses.'' More recently, while the EEOC has tens of thousands of 
age discrimination complaints that it should address, it has, instead, 
started investigating some of our member companies that they find 
suspect--even when no complaint has been filed. In fact, as Chairman 
Alexander pointed out at the hearing, the EEOC appears to be putting up 
``Craigslist'' ads trying to find complainants, after starting 
investigations without any individual filing a complaint.
    While the EEOC representatives did not seem to know who at the 
agency may have placed the Craigslist ads, they confirmed that the e-
mail addresses used in them belong to the EEOC. We urge you to ask the 
agency to fully answer the question they were unable to answer at the 
hearing as to who and why someone has decided that placing these ads on 
behalf of the EEOC is the proper way to seek complainants when the 
agency itself is unable to find any through proper channels.
    EEOC General Counsel Lopez seemed to have insinuated in his answer 
that the ads may not have been placed by the agency. If that is the 
case, why then has the EEOC not tried to find out who and under what 
authority are these ads being placed on behalf of the agency. As you 
can see from a copy of the actual Craigslist advertisement below, it 
appears extremely improbable that anyone else other than agency staff 
or someone working under its authority, would have placed this 
advertisement:
          texas roadhouse age discrimination case (nationwide)

Texas Roadhouse Litigation

(compensation: Pursuant to settlement.)

    The EEOC has sued the Texas Roadhouse chain of restaurants, 
claiming that Texas Roadhouse did not hire people age 40 and older 
because of their age.
    If you believe you may have been denied a front of the house 
position such as server, hostess/host, bartender, etc. at Texas 
Roadhouse because of your age or if you have information, please 
contact the EEOC toll free at:

    (855) 556-1129
    or by e-mail at:
    [email protected].

    Do not contact this e-mail address or phone number unless you 
applied for a job with Texas Roadhouse or you have any relevant 
information. If you want advice or have a claim concerning any other 
employer or respondent covered by EEOC you can contact an EEOC field 
office, or call toll-free 1-800-669-4000 (or TTY 1-800-669-6820), or e-
mail us at [email protected].

     Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job 
poster.
     do NOT contact us with unsolicited services or offers.

    post id: 4996552669 / posted: 25 days ago / updated: 25 days ago

    Meanwhile, as the EEOC continues to pursue investigations that do 
not involve a complainant, the backlog of actual complaints continues 
to grow and now stands at over 75,000. Our industry is not alone, as 
the EEOC continues to investigate at least three accounting firms--none 
of which had a complainant--where partners voluntarily adopted a 
mandatory retirement age.
    One of the most notorious investigations in the restaurant industry 
involves the Texas Roadhouse restaurant chain--which is also the 
subject of the Craigslist advertisement copied above. The EEOC began 
this investigation in 2011 claiming age discrimination--because Texas 
Roadhouse's hosts, bartenders, and servers seem too young. There was no 
complaint of such a violation, but the agency's actions forced Texas 
Roadhouse to fight a lengthy and costly court battle--not to mention 
the cost to protect its public image against litigation by press 
release.
    As highlighted at the hearing, the EEOC has been losing these 
lawsuits--which were premised on controversial legal arguments from the 
start--while receiving strong rebukes from the judges deciding these 
cases. The EEOC representatives acknowledged that they issue press 
statements to highlight these cases and investigations at their outset, 
but do nothing to clear the names and reputations of employers that are 
cleared of any wrongdoing by the courts.
    Meanwhile, employers are left with the task of cleaning the damage 
to their reputation from headline grabbing press releases when they 
have not broken the law as the EEOC alleges under dubious legal 
arguments.
    Another recent example of EEOC's overreach is apparent in its 
discrimination claims against employers that offer discounted health 
insurance to employees who participate in wellness programs. These 
programs are allowed, and encouraged, under the Affordable Care Act. 
Regardless, the EEOC has been filing lawsuits against employers under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act, claiming that the increased health insurance 
premiums paid by employees who do not participate are discriminatory.
    The National Restaurant Association recently joined other business 
organizations in asking Congress to pass legislation to increase EEOC 
transparency and accountability and reaffirm existing law on employee 
wellness programs. We are encouraged by Chairman Alexander's own 
legislation to tackle some of these issues.
    Once again, while we support the EEOC's mission of preventing 
discrimination in the workplace, we are troubled by its pursuit of 
frivolous investigations, particularly those that are not driven by 
employee complaints.
    Thank you again for your vital oversight of the EEOC. We look 
forward to continuing to work with you and your staff to make sure the 
EEOC properly addresses the concerns outlined above.
                                 ______
                                 
                     Healthcare Leadership Council,
                                              June 2, 2015.

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510-6300.

Re: Statement for the record for the hearing, ``Oversight of the Equal 
        Employment Opportunity Commission: Examining EEOC's Enforcement 
        and Litigation Programs''

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the 
Healthcare Leadership Council (HLC), thank you for your leadership in 
advancing policies designed to improve the health of all Americans and 
for your interest in further examining the value workplace wellness 
programs bring to employees and their employers. HLC members have 
followed the recent activities of your committee regarding workplace 
wellness programs with interest and look forward to working with you as 
you provide oversight of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) and its forthcoming promulgation of wellness program 
regulations.
    HLC is a coalition of chief executives from all disciplines within 
American healthcare. It is the exclusive forum for the Nation's 
healthcare leaders to jointly develop policies, plans, and programs to 
achieve their vision of a 21st century health system that makes 
affordable, high-quality care accessible to all Americans. Members of 
HLC--hospitals, academic health centers, health plans, pharmaceutical 
companies, medical device manufacturers, biotech firms, health product 
distributors, pharmacies, and information technology companies--
advocate measures to increase the quality and efficiency of American 
healthcare by emphasizing wellness and prevention, care coordination, 
and the use of evidence-based medicine, while utilizing consumer choice 
and competition to enhance value.
    HLC members are at the forefront of designing and implementing 
meaningful wellness programs to better the lives of their employees, 
communities, and patients. Based on decades of experience in 
implementing evidence-based wellness programs, we strongly believe 
appropriately designed wellness programs have the potential to 
contribute to promoting health and preventing disease. HLC is a strong 
supporter of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions that encourage 
the use of workplace wellness programs by allowing increased premium 
variation incentives for those that complete workplace wellness 
programs. These provisions were endorsed on a bipartisan basis by your 
committee and Congress, as well as supported by the President and the 
Administration, as one of the keys to addressing the chronic disease 
epidemic, which will continue to dramatically burden the healthcare 
system if left unchecked.
    Given the lack of clarity about the EEOC's position on the extent 
to which the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permits employers to 
offer incentives to employees to promote participation in wellness 
programs, we are pleased to see that the EEOC is finally moving forward 
with regulation. Guidance will reduce the uncertainty that employers 
who implement innovative wellness programs currently face and the 
chilling effect this has produced on the ability of employers to move 
forward with them.
    However, while we are pleased that the EEOC does not view health 
risk assessments and biometric screenings as incompatible with 
incentives as part of voluntary programs, we continue to have concerns 
about the proposed regulation. Specifically, the proposed regulation 
conflicts with existing law as well as leaves some questions 
unanswered. We look forward to sharing our full feedback on the 
proposed rule with the EEOC as well as members of the committee.
    As employers and the healthcare industry await the final 
regulation, we wish to commend your committee for providing oversight 
to the EEOC's activities. We echo the concerns voiced by members of the 
committee during the hearing about the timely need for clear 
regulations regarding workplace wellness programs. We look forward to 
the release in July of proposed rules regarding the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and workplace wellness programs and urge 
the committee to encourage the EEOC to provide comments harmonized with 
the ADA regulations to reduce confusion.
    As the committee works to ensure that voluntary workplace wellness 
programs continue to flourish and aid in empowering patients to address 
health risks that may lead to dramatically reduced health and well-
being, please consider us a partner. We offer our assistance and would 
welcome the opportunity to discuss these ideas with you or your staff.
            Sincerely,
                                            Mary R. Grealy,
                                                         President.

  Response by Jenny Yang, to Questions of Senator Alexander, Senator 
               Paul, Senator Collins, and Senator Roberts

                           senator alexander
    Question 1a. According to a January 26, 2015, Bloomberg BNA 
article, entitled EEOC Welcomes New Staff to Build on Agency's National 
Enforcement Strategy, an EEOC spokesperson told Bloomberg that as of 
December 1, 2014, EEOC had 820 investigators and 395 attorneys. 
However, at the May 19 hearing, you stated EEOC only has 548 
investigators. Please explain this discrepancy and how many 
investigators EEOC has in the Office of Field Programs and how many 
attorneys it has under the Office of General Counsel.
    Answer 1a. EEOC currently has 548 available \1\ front-line 
investigators in the Office of Field Programs who take in and 
investigate charges and 226 attorneys in the Office of General Counsel. 
Of those attorneys, 55 are supervisory and 171 are non-supervisory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The 548 investigator number refers to front-line investigators 
identified as ``available'' in the agency's quarterly reports. These 
quarterly reports reflect staff availability to serve as full-time 
investigators adjusting for factors such as part-time status, military 
service, detail to other positions (such as mediator), extended leave 
for medical reasons, and the training status of new EEOC investigators 
during their first 3 months on the job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 820 investigator figure referenced in the Bloomberg BNA article 
was based on a December 2014 staffing report listing all staff who held 
a position that included ``investigator'' in the job title, as 
classified by OPM. This staffing report figure included not only our 
front-line investigators, but also staff in supervisory and management 
roles at varying grade levels, including intake supervisors, 
enforcement supervisors, enforcement managers, and deputy directors of 
district offices, as well as field, area, and local office directors.
    The 395 attorneys cited in the BNA article include attorneys 
throughout the agency, in the Office of Legal Counsel, the Office of 
Federal Operations, the Office of Field Programs, and the Office of 
General Counsel, as well as other offices.

    Question 1b. EEOC litigates less than one quarter of 1 percent 
(0.15 percent) of all charges filed. Would you consider shifting 
resources around to devote more staff to reducing the growing backlog 
of more than 75,000 complaints?
    Answer 1b. EEOC devotes by far the largest part of its resources to 
investigations initiated in response to charges of discrimination, 
which reflects the priority the agency places on timely investigation 
of charges. The agency has been steadfastly committed to managing its 
workload and achieved significant reductions in fiscal years 2010-13 
despite fiscal constraints and operational challenges, including a 
historic rise in charge receipts in fiscal years 2008-13. Sequestration 
and a 16-day government shutdown in fiscal year 2014 impeded the 
agency's capacity to sustain significant inventory reductions in fiscal 
year 2014.
    EEOC carefully considers its distribution of resources and devotes 
the majority of resources to timely management of our inventory. The 
agency works with employers to resolve voluntarily thousands of charges 
of discrimination. In fiscal year 2014, EEOC resolved a total of 13,604 
charges through voluntary resolutions and litigated 133 lawsuits. Where 
the agency identifies a significant violation of the law that the 
parties are unable to resolve voluntarily, a strong litigation program 
is important to ensure compliance. The resources allocated to the 
Office of General Counsel (``OGC''), account for less than 15 percent 
of EEOC's budget. These resources support the agency's litigation as 
well as the provision of legal advice and support to the agency on 
policy matters and to investigative staff.

    Question 2. Does EEOC ever utilize a third-party to find, or help 
find, plaintiffs before or during an investigation or litigation? This 
includes, but is not limited to, Web sites, contracted legal services 
or investigative services, contract employees, social media, etc.
    If so, since 2010, please list each instance where this has 
occurred and the amount of resources spent in each instance.
    Answer 2. When an employer fails to keep records, it may be 
difficult for EEOC to obtain information on those harmed or potentially 
harmed by a discriminatory policy or practice.
    On rare occasions, after an investigation has been completed and 
during conciliation, an employer who has not kept the records required 
by law may agree to Web postings, advertisements, or other means to 
identify potentially aggrieved individuals. In these circumstances, it 
is generally the respondent who creates and pays for advertisements.
    In certain larger investigations, EEOC may contract for the 
services of temporary paralegals or support personnel to contact and 
interview individuals who may be witnesses or who may have been harmed 
by the discriminatory policy or practice alleged. During the 
investigation, these paralegals or support personnel may be required to 
search for contact information where the information on file is 
inaccurate, missing, or outdated. The time they spend updating or 
obtaining contact information for potentially aggrieved individuals is 
not recorded separately from the time they spend on preparing files, 
organizing documents, and entering data.
    In litigation, EEOC has occasionally contracted with a third-
party--such as placing ads with a newspaper or radio station--to find 
an individual for whom the agency seeks to obtain relief.\2\ We have 
identified three instances since 2010 in which EEOC has contracted with 
a third party during litigation to help find individuals who may have 
been harmed by the discriminatory policy or practice alleged. We 
contracted with third parties in these instances because we were unable 
to identify members of the protected class at issue from the employer's 
records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ EEOC is the ``plaintiff '' in its litigation, and individuals 
for whom the agency may pursue relief are considered aggrieved or 
potentially harmed individuals.

     In 2011, in a case filed against a restaurant with two 
locations for alleged race discrimination against African-Americans in 
hiring and job assignments, EEOC contracted for radio ads, at a cost of 
$7,995, to help identify individuals affected by the discrimination 
alleged. The lawsuit was settled in 2014.
     In 2012, in a case filed against an automobile shipment 
company for alleged failure to hire African-Americans because of race 
and alleged discrimination against applicants with disabilities based 
on pre-employment medical inquiries, EEOC contracted for newspaper ads, 
at a cost of $3,525, to help identify individuals affected by the 
discrimination alleged. This lawsuit is pending.
     In 2012, in a case filed against a restaurant with six 
locations for alleged failure to hire individuals 40 years old and over 
because of age, EEOC contracted for radio ads, at a cost of $2,475, to 
help identify individuals affected by the discrimination alleged. The 
lawsuit was settled in 2013.

    Question 3. Does EEOC ever review Craigslist to search for evidence 
of potential discrimination?
    If so, how often and how many resources are spent on these efforts?
    Answer 3. Over the course of the past 5\1/2\ years (fiscal year 
2010-15, to date), EEOC has expended minimal resources to review 
Craigslist advertisements to identify evidence of discrimination. For 
example, sometimes EEOC learns of potentially discriminatory ads on 
Craigslist from a member of the public or during the course of an 
investigation. Investigators would go directly to Craigslist to confirm 
those allegations. We estimate that during this 5\1/2\ year period, 
investigative staff spent a total of approximately 200 hours to 
identify evidence of discrimination in ads on Craigslist. In some 
instances, for example, offices identified potentially discriminatory 
job advertisements that may have excluded applicants based on gender 
and age.

    Question 4. At the May 19 hearing, I asked that EEOC remove press 
releases from their Web site in the cases in which EEOC lost the case. 
You responded that you would take a look at this issue and report back 
to me. As of May 29, 2015, press releases announcing lawsuits that EEOC 
ultimately lost remain on EEOC's Web site. Will you commit to removing 
the press releases and by what date will this be complete?
    If you cannot commit to removing these press releases at this time, 
please explain all of the factors you are weighing as you consider my 
request.
    Answer 4. In response to this request, moving forward, the agency 
intends to remove press releases after the final resolution of a case 
in which EEOC has lost and no appeal is being filed or in which the 
loss is affirmed on appeal. In addition, we will remove from the site 
press releases for any case that EEOC voluntarily dismisses. We will 
complete this review over the next 6 months and remove press releases 
on a rolling basis. Finally, we have removed the five press releases 
Chairman Alexander referenced at the May 19 hearing.

    Question 5a. According to EEOC's Performance and Accountability 
Reports (PAR), EEOC initiated litigation in 91 systemic cases since 
fiscal year 2010. According to your testimony from the hearing, 12 of 
those charges in litigation were based on a charge filed by someone 
other than the aggrieved party, or roughly 13 percent.
    Since 2010, please provide a list in a sortable Microsoft Excel 
Spreadsheet of all investigations by year, including non-systemic 
investigations, based on:

    1. commissioner's charge;
    2. directed investigation; and
    3. any other charges filed by someone other than the aggrieved 
party.
    See Question 5b and 5c for response.

    Question 5b. For each of these investigations in (a), please 
indicate if the investigation is systemic or non-systemic, is ongoing, 
is in litigation, was settled through conciliation, or was dropped by 
EEOC without reaching a resolution with the employer.
    Answer 5a and 5b. Attached are spreadsheets listing Commissioner 
charges and directed investigations identified by statute, issue, 
basis, and fiscal year, with notations on whether the matters are 
systemic or non-systemic, ongoing or closed, as requested. Although our 
data base does not permit us to provide a spreadsheet of ``any other 
charges filed by someone other than the aggrieved party,'' we have 
provided an explanation below.
    Typically, more than 50 percent of Commissioner charges and 
directed investigations have been opened during an investigation of a 
charge filed by an individual where the evidence suggests a broader 
policy or practice that affects other workers. Approximately 75 percent 
of Commissioner charges and directed investigations are based on 
discrimination in hiring, which is one of the most difficult issues for 
individual workers to challenge, and is therefore a priority for EEOC.
    As the attached spreadsheet of Commissioner charges shows, EEOC 
opened 125 Commissioner charges from fiscal year 2010 through June 10, 
2015. Of those, EEOC resolved 38 charges, and the other 87 remain in 
investigation. Of the 38 resolutions, 15 were settled with benefits 
before a finding was issued, the Commission issued a cause finding in 
15 investigations and successfully conciliated 7 of those, and for 8 
investigations the Commission either administratively closed or did not 
find sufficient evidence of discrimination to issue a cause finding and 
dismissed the charge. That means that the Commission found 
discrimination or obtained a settlement in nearly 80 percent of the 
charges resolved.
    EEOC opened 520 directed investigations--470 under the ADEA and 50 
under the EPA--from fiscal year 2010 through June 10, 2015, as the 
attached spreadsheet of directed investigations shows. Of the 520 
directed investigations, EEOC resolved 440, and 80 remain in 
investigation. Of the 440 resolutions, EEOC found reasonable cause to 
believe discrimination occurred in 243 investigations (55 percent) and 
successfully conciliated 164 of these investigations (67 percent). The 
high number of reasonable cause findings and successful resolution rate 
reflects the strength and significance of these investigations as well 
as EEOC's commitment to conciliation efforts. In addition, EEOC settled 
110 charges prior to issuing a cause determination. Therefore, of the 
440 resolutions, 110 were settled with benefits before a finding was 
issued, the Commission found reasonable cause to believe discrimination 
occurred in 243 investigations, of which 164 were successfully 
conciliated, and the Commission either administratively closed or did 
not find sufficient evidence to support a cause finding in 87 
investigations and closed the investigation. That means that the 
Commission found discrimination or obtained a settlement in 
approximately 80 percent of the charges resolved.
    Section 706(b) of Title VII provides that charges may be filed ``by 
or on behalf of '' individuals claiming to be aggrieved. Our data base 
identifies the ``source of the complaint,'' including third-party 
complaints but does not separately categorize charges filed by third 
parties from those filed by the aggrieved individuals themselves.
    Even when the source of the complaint is a third party, the charge 
will be filed on behalf of an individual alleged to be aggrieved. For 
example, our data base includes charges filed by parents on behalf of 
minors; family members or others on behalf of individuals who cannot or 
are reluctant to file a charge; organizations such as disability rights 
advocates or other civil rights groups; and attorneys for their 
clients.

    Question 5c. Since 2010, please provide a list in a sortable 
Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet of all litigation by year, including non-
systemic litigation, based on a:

    1. commissioner's charge;
    2. directed investigation; and
    3. any other charges filed by someone other than the aggrieved 
party.

    Answer 5c. Attached is the spreadsheet of litigation.

                                           ADEA and EPA Directed Investigations FY 2010 through June 10, 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Was the
                                                                                                                                           conciliation
         Fiscal year            Staff function      Status code         Statute            Basis            Issue        Closure action      failure
                                                                                                                                            litigated?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Layoff.........  No Cause         ...............
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      PFemale.                           Finding Issued.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Referral,        Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        No Cause
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Finding Issued.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        No Cause
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Finding Issued.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Failure.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Failure.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Failure.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Failure.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           No Jurisdiction
                                                                                                        PConditions,
                                                                                                        PBenefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           No Jurisdiction
                                                                                                        PConditions,
                                                                                                        PBenefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits, Terms/ No Jurisdiction
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           No Jurisdiction
                                                                                                        PConditions,
                                                                                                        PBenefits.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Retirement--PIn  Administrative
                                                                                                        voluntary.       Closure.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Retirement--PIn  Conciliation
                                                                                                        voluntary.       Failure.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Referral.......  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  CP Withdrawal-
                                                                                                                         No Ben..
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Discharge,       Ongoing........
                                                                                                        PTesting.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        PHiring, Other.  Conciliation.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        PAdvertising.    Conciliation.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Discipline,      No Cause
                                                                                                        PDischarge,      Finding Issued.
                                                                                                        PDemotion,
                                                                                                        PConstructive
                                                                                                        PDischarge.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2010......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Conciliation     Yes
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Successful
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Conciliation.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Conciliation     Yes
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Failure.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Conciliation     Yes
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Failure.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Settlement With
                                                                                      Female.                            Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Referral.......  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Jurisdiction
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Settlement With
                                                                                                        Promotion,       Benefits.
                                                                                                        Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Wages,
                                                                                                        Discharge.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Assignment.....  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  CP Withdrawal-
                                                                                                                         No Ben.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age, Other......  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  CP Withdrawal-
                                                                                                                         No Ben.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Administrative
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Closure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        Exclusion.       Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--Male.  Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--Male.  Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Administrative
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Closure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Discharge,       Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Wages,
                                                                                                        Promotion,
                                                                                                        Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Hiring.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Retaliation,      Wages..........  Successful
                                                                                      Equal Pay--                        Conciliation.
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Retaliation, Age  Union            Successful
                                                                                                        Representation   Conciliation.
                                                                                                        , Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Advertising.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Successful
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Conciliation.
                                                                                                        Pension, Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Early
                                                                                                        Retirement
                                                                                                        Incentive.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring, Layoff.  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  R...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Successful
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Conciliation.
                                                                                                        Pension, Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Early
                                                                                                        Retirement
                                                                                                        Incentive.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Ongoing........  Conciliation     Yes
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Early            Settlement With
                                                                                                        Retirement       Benefits.
                                                                                                        Incentive,
                                                                                                        Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Benefits-
                                                                                                        Retirement/
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2011......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Settlement With
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2011......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Referral.        Conciliation.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     No Jurisdiction
                                                                                                        Hiring.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Retaliation.....  Intimidation,    Successful
                                                                                                        Constructive     Conciliation.
                                                                                                        Discharge,
                                                                                                        Terms and
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Retaliation, Age  Terms/           Successful
                                                                                                        Conditions,      Conciliation.
                                                                                                        Constructive
                                                                                                        Discharge.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Conciliation     Yes
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Failure.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Settlement With
                                                                                      Female.                            Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Settlement With
                                                                                      Female.                            Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Discharge,       Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Hiring,
                                                                                                        Promotion.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Administrative
                                                                                                                         Closure.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Administrative
                                                                                                                         Closure.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Jurisdiction
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  CP Withdrawal-
                                                                                                                         No Ben..
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  CP Withdrawal-
                                                                                                                         No Ben..
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Layoff.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Layoff.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Successful
                                                                                      Female.                            Conciliation.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  L...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Retirement/      Failure.
                                                                                                        Pension.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Layoff, Hiring.  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Benefits, Wages  Successful
                                                                                      Female.                            Conciliation.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Settlement With
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Recall, Hiring.  Ongoing........
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  R...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  CP Withdrawal-
                                                                                                                         No Ben..
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Demotion,
                                                                                                        Discharge.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          No Cause
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Settlement With
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Conciliation.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Jurisdiction
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Conciliation     No
                                                                                      Female.                            Failure.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Other...........  Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  R...............  EPA.............  Other...........  Wages..........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          No Cause
                                                                                                        Promotion.       Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Other..........  Ongoing........
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Discipline,      Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Hiring.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Administrative
                                                                                                                         Closure.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2012......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Jurisdiction
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--Male;  Wages..........  Settlement With
                                                                                      Equal Pay--                        Benefits.
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Settlement With
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Settlement With
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Promotion,       Settlement With
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age, Other......  Harassment,      Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits.......  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits, Terms/ Successful
                                                                                                        Conditions.      Conciliation.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits, Terms/ Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits, Terms/ Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Successful
                                                                                                        Conditions,      Conciliation.
                                                                                                        Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits, Terms/ Successful
                                                                                                        Conditions.      Conciliation.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Successful
                                                                                                        Conditions,      Conciliation.
                                                                                                        Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring, Other..  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Retaliation,      Filing EEO       Successful
                                                                                      Equal Pay--       Forms, Union     Conciliation.
                                                                                      PFemale.          Representation
                                                                                                        , Terms and
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Retaliation, Age  Filing EEO       Successful
                                                                                                        Forms, Union     Conciliation.
                                                                                                        Representation
                                                                                                        , Terms and
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  EPA.............  Retaliation,      Filing EEO       Successful
                                                                                      Equal Pay--       Forms, Union     Conciliation.
                                                                                      PFemale.          Representation
                                                                                                        , Terms and
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Retaliation, Age  Union            Successful
                                                                                                        Representation   Conciliation.
                                                                                                        , Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female.                            Finding Issued.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  No Cause
                                                                                      Female, Equal                      Finding Issued.
                                                                                      Pay--Male.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2013......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Discharge,       Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Discipline,
                                                                                                        Layoff,
                                                                                                        Discharge.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Administrative
                                                                                      Female.                            Closure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Assignment.....  Administrative
                                                                                                                         Closure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Jurisdiction
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          No Cause
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Finding Issued.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        Advertising.     Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     No Jurisdiction
                                                                                                        Hiring.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Administrative
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Closure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Administrative
                                                                                                                         Closure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Jurisdiction
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Jurisdiction
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  O...............  EPA.............  Equal Pay--       Wages..........  Ongoing........
                                                                                      Female.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Hiring.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     No Jurisdiction
                                                                                                        Hiring.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Jurisdiction
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Jurisdiction
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring,          Successful
                                                                                                        Qualifications.  Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Conciliation     No
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Settlement With
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Settlement With
                                                                                                                         Benefits.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2014......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Promotion,
                                                                                                        Discharge,
                                                                                                        Hiring.
FY 2015......................  Systemic........  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits,        Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Discharge,
                                                                                                        Constructive
                                                                                                        Discharge,
                                                                                                        Assignment,
                                                                                                        Promotion,
                                                                                                        Hiring,
                                                                                                        Retirement--In
                                                                                                        voluntary,
                                                                                                        Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Layoff, Other.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Administrative
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Closure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Benefits-        Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Insurance,
                                                                                                        Terms/
                                                                                                        Conditions.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Administrative
                                                                                                                         Closure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  No Jurisdiction
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Conciliation     No
                                                                                                                         Failure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Administrative
                                                                                                                         Closure.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising....  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  No Cause
                                                                                                                         Finding Issued.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Advertising,     Successful
                                                                                                        Hiring.          Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Ongoing........
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  C...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Hiring.........  Successful
                                                                                                                         Conciliation.
FY 2015......................  Not Systemic....  O...............  ADEA............  Age.............  Terms/           Ongoing........
                                                                                                        Conditions,
                                                                                                        Wages, Hiring,
                                                                                                        Discharge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Jurisdictional basis                                                Monetary     Number of                             On
             Case name                 Filed       Resolved           Court              Civil action #            of suit               Systemic?            Resolution         benefits   beneficiaries   Non-monetary relief  appeal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBM Graphics, Inc.................    9/29/2011   12/19/2012  MDNC.................  1:11-cv-805..........  Commissioner's charge  Y...................  Consent PDecree.....     $334,000          61     All new contracts           N
                                                                                                             P(Leslie PSilverman).                                                                          entered into
                                                                                                                                                                                                            between Defendant
                                                                                                                                                                                                            and temporary
                                                                                                                                                                                                            agencies at Durham
                                                                                                                                                                                                            facility will state
                                                                                                                                                                                                            that Defendant is
                                                                                                                                                                                                            an equal employment
                                                                                                                                                                                                            opportunity
                                                                                                                                                                                                            employer. Defendant
                                                                                                                                                                                                            shall distribute
                                                                                                                                                                                                            specified
                                                                                                                                                                                                            legitimate,
                                                                                                                                                                                                            nondiscriminatory
                                                                                                                                                                                                            criteria to all
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Durham facility
                                                                                                                                                                                                            managers and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            supervisors
                                                                                                                                                                                                            involved with the
                                                                                                                                                                                                            selection of
                                                                                                                                                                                                            temporary workers
                                                                                                                                                                                                            into the
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ``returning or
                                                                                                                                                                                                            regular'' group of
                                                                                                                                                                                                            temporary workers.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendant shall
                                                                                                                                                                                                            distribute
                                                                                                                                                                                                            specified
                                                                                                                                                                                                            legitimate,
                                                                                                                                                                                                            nondiscriminatory
                                                                                                                                                                                                            criteria to all
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Durham facility
                                                                                                                                                                                                            managers and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            supervisors
                                                                                                                                                                                                            involved with the
                                                                                                                                                                                                            assignment of hours
                                                                                                                                                                                                            of temporary
                                                                                                                                                                                                            workers. Defendant
                                                                                                                                                                                                            shall maintain,
                                                                                                                                                                                                            redistribute, and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            post two specified
                                                                                                                                                                                                            EEO policies.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendant shall
                                                                                                                                                                                                            provide annual
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Title VII training.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendant shall
                                                                                                                                                                                                            post Employee
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Notice. Defendant
                                                                                                                                                                                                            shall maintain
                                                                                                                                                                                                            specified records
                                                                                                                                                                                                            and provide two
                                                                                                                                                                                                            reports.
Rosebud Restaurants, Inc..........     09/17/13               NDIL.................  13-cv-6656...........  Commissioner's charge  Y...................  ....................  ...........
                                                                                                             (Constance Barker).
Source One Staffing, Inc..........     03/04/15     05/06/15  NDIL.................  15-cv-1958...........  Commissioner's charge  Y...................  Consent PDecree.....     $800,000       7,304     Injunction against          N
                                                                                                             (Chai Feldblum).                                                                               discrimination and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            retaliation. The
                                                                                                                                                                                                            decree also
                                                                                                                                                                                                            requires Defendant
                                                                                                                                                                                                            to: (1) train its
                                                                                                                                                                                                            employees on
                                                                                                                                                                                                            employee rights
                                                                                                                                                                                                            under Title VII and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            the ADA; (2) report
                                                                                                                                                                                                            complaints of
                                                                                                                                                                                                            discrimination
                                                                                                                                                                                                            during the decree's
                                                                                                                                                                                                            3-year term; (3)
                                                                                                                                                                                                            change its
                                                                                                                                                                                                            employment policies
                                                                                                                                                                                                            and practices to
                                                                                                                                                                                                            conform to the ADA
                                                                                                                                                                                                            and Title VII; and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            (4) post a notice
                                                                                                                                                                                                            of the Decree at
                                                                                                                                                                                                            all of its
                                                                                                                                                                                                            locations.
PMT Corporation...................     03/06/14               DMN..................  0:14-cv-00599........  Commissioner's charge  Y...................    ..................
                                                                                                              (Victoria Lipnic)/
                                                                                                             Directed ADEA
                                                                                                             investigation.
Minnesota Board of Public Defense.    1/25/2012    4/26/2012  DMN..................  12-cv-00205-RHK-FLN..  Directed ADEA          Y...................  Consent  Decree.....      $53,514           4       ..................        N
                                                                                                             investigation.
Minnesota Dept. of Commerce.......    9/26/2011    11/9/2011  DMN..................  11-cv-2746-JNE-AJB...  Directed ADEA          Y...................  Consent  Decree.....       $8,925           1       ..................        N
                                                                                                             investigation.
Minnesota Dept. of Natural            9/26/2011    11/7/2011  DMN..................  11-cv-2745-JNE-AJB...  Directed ADEA          Y...................  Consent  Decree.....      $84,517           1       ..................        N
 Resources.                                                                                                  investigation.
Hill Country Farms, Inc...........     4/6/2011    6/11/2013  SDIA.................  3:11-cv-00041........  Third party charge by  Y...................  Judgment upon          $3,406,431          32     The Order included          N
                                                                                                             sister of aggrieved                          remittitur of jury                                an injunction was
                                                                                                             individual.                                  verdict.                                          ordered, including
                                                                                                                                                                                                            non-discrimination,
                                                                                                                                                                                                            accommodation and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            training, was
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ordered against any
                                                                                                                                                                                                            future business
                                                                                                                                                                                                            operations of the
                                                                                                                                                                                                            employer or a
                                                                                                                                                                                                            successor employer.
Bass Pro Shops....................    9/21/2011               SDTX.................  4:11-cv-03425........  Commissioner's charge  Y...................    ..................                                ..................        N
                                                                                                              (Stuart Ishimaru).
Jacksonville Ass'n of                 4/30/2012               MDFL.................  3:12-cv-00491........  Commissioner's charge  Y...................    ..................                                ..................        N
 Firefighters, Local 122, IAFF.                                                                               (Stuart Ishimaru).
Texas Roadhouse...................    9/30/2011               DMA..................  11-11732.............  Directed ADEA          Y...................    ..................                                ..................        N
                                                                                                             investigation.
FAPS INC..........................    6/17/2010               DNJ..................  2:10CV03095..........  Commissioner's charge  Y...................    ..................                                ..................        N
                                                                                                              (Stuart Ishimaru).
Presrite Corporation..............     2/4/2011    4/24/2013  NDOH.................  1:11cv00260..........  Commissioner's charge  Y...................  Consent  Decree.....     $700,000         140     Defendant will offer        N
                                                                                                             (Christine Griffin).                                                                           jobs to no fewer
                                                                                                                                                                                                            than 40 women.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendant will give
                                                                                                                                                                                                            those females
                                                                                                                                                                                                            priority
                                                                                                                                                                                                            consideration and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            offer them jobs
                                                                                                                                                                                                            before any current
                                                                                                                                                                                                            applicants, prevent
                                                                                                                                                                                                            future
                                                                                                                                                                                                            discrimination
                                                                                                                                                                                                            through periodic
                                                                                                                                                                                                            reports to EEOC
                                                                                                                                                                                                            disclosing the
                                                                                                                                                                                                            number of females
                                                                                                                                                                                                            and males who
                                                                                                                                                                                                            applied as compared
                                                                                                                                                                                                            to those who were
                                                                                                                                                                                                            hired; mandatory
                                                                                                                                                                                                            training; and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            retention of
                                                                                                                                                                                                            applicant and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            employment records,
                                                                                                                                                                                                            including creating
                                                                                                                                                                                                            and producing
                                                                                                                                                                                                            electronic data.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            The decree includes
                                                                                                                                                                                                            an injunction
                                                                                                                                                                                                            prohibiting
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendant from
                                                                                                                                                                                                            discriminating
                                                                                                                                                                                                            against women in
                                                                                                                                                                                                            the recruiting and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            hiring process and
                                                                                                                                                                                                            compelling the
                                                                                                                                                                                                            company to make all
                                                                                                                                                                                                            good-faith,
                                                                                                                                                                                                            reasonably
                                                                                                                                                                                                            necessary efforts
                                                                                                                                                                                                            to find female
                                                                                                                                                                                                            candidates to fill
                                                                                                                                                                                                            vacancies in
                                                                                                                                                                                                            laborer or
                                                                                                                                                                                                            operative positions.
Murphy School District #21........     4/7/2014               DAZ..................  2:14-CV-00721-SRB....  Directed ADEA          Y...................    ..................                                ..................        N
                                                                                                             investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 6. EEOC received 88,778 charges in fiscal year 2014. At 
the hearing you stated in fiscal year 2014 EEOC resolved about 87,000 
charges. This is the lowest number of charges resolved since fiscal 
year 2010, despite higher numbers of charge receipts in those years. In 
fact, in fiscal year 2010, EEOC received 99,922 charges and resolved 
104,999; in fiscal year 2011, EEOC received 99,947 charges and resolved 
112,499; in fiscal year 2012, EEOC received 99,412 charges and resolved 
111,139; and in fiscal year 2013, EEOC received 93,727 and resolved 
97,252. While EEOC's budget has fluctuated some between fiscal year 
2010 and 2014, it has generally remained stable. Please explain why the 
number of charge resolutions dropped significantly in 2014, especially 
in light of the lower number of receipts that year as well.
    Answer 6. Significant rescissions in EEOC's budget, specifically 
$734,606 in fiscal year 2011 and $26 million in fiscal year 2013, 
considerably reduced our investigative capabilities. The fiscal year 
2011 rescission--coupled with cost-of-living and step increases and 
associated increases in benefits for EEOC personnel as well as rising 
rents--triggered a 3-year hiring freeze that lasted into fiscal year 
2014. Since EEOC's fixed operating costs--including compensation, 
benefits, and rent--consume 93 percent of its budget, even where the 
budget remains relatively flat, this requires the agency to reduce its 
staffing level to account for increases in salary, benefits, and rent. 
These factors, together with the government shutdown in the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2014, and the $26 million rescission in fiscal 
year 2013, contributed to a decrease in the number of charges resolved 
in fiscal year 2014.
    The agency is committed to investing in staff and systems to 
strengthen our enforcement, deliver excellent service to the public, 
and promote compliance with Federal civil rights laws. In fact, EEOC 
reduced its pending inventory to 77,424 charges during the second 
quarter of fiscal year 2015.
    This reflects a 1 percent decline in our inventory over a single 3 
month period, despite a 5 percent increase in the number of charges 
filed during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2015, as compared to 
fiscal year 2014.
    EEOC staff resolved a total of 43,561 charges during the first two 
quarters of this fiscal year. This includes 23,564 charges in the 
second quarter, which is 7 percent more than in the first quarter, when 
we resolved 19,997 charges. Compared to the same period last year, EEOC 
increased its charge resolutions by 15 percent--43,561 at the end of 
second quarter fiscal year 2015 versus 37,928 at the end of second 
quarter fiscal year 2014.
    We attribute this positive trend in our pending charge inventory to 
several factors, including hiring new staff beginning in mid-fiscal 
year 2014, increased staff productivity, and a continued emphasis on 
effective and efficient case management. The impact of 2014 hiring, 
however, occurred too late in the year to significantly affect 
resolutions. As newly hired investigators and other enforcement 
employees complete their training, they are reaching full productivity 
and contributing to inventory reduction efforts. Even as we received 
more new charges during the quarter, we made steady progress both in 
handling newly filed charges and in resolving those pending in the 
inventory.

    Question 7. EEOC has issued significant and controversial guidance 
without allowing the public to comment on the draft guidance. In March, 
the Supreme Court questioned the ``timing, consistency, and 
thoroughness'' of EEOC guidance. Next time you plan to issue guidance, 
will you let the public have the opportunity to first review and 
comment on a draft before it is finalized?
    Answer 7. The Commission is exploring a process to provide the 
public with an opportunity to review and provide input on proposed 
subregulatory guidance documents before they are final. This effort 
builds upon the avenues the agency has used to receive public input. 
For example, EEOC frequently holds Commission meetings before issuing 
guidance. We request public feedback during and in the 15 days after 
those meetings and carefully consider the feedback provided.
    Further, EEOC posts its final guidance online and provides a means 
for public comment there. The Commission is consulting with Federal 
agencies that have established processes for requesting public input on 
proposed subregulatory guidance documents to identify effective 
practices for obtaining additional public input while efficiently using 
agency resources. Concurrently, we are looking into the kinds of 
guidance documents that may be appropriate for additional public input. 
We will keep you apprised of our progress.

    Question 8a. Given the Supreme Court's decision in Mach Mining, 
what do you believe EEOC now has to do to fulfill its conciliation 
obligations?
    What steps have you taken at EEOC to ensure future conciliations 
comply with Mach Mining?
    Answer 8a. The Supreme Court's decision in Mach Mining LLC v. EEOC, 
135 S.Ct. 1645 (2015), provides needed clarity across the courts 
concerning the standards for judicial review of EEOC's conciliation 
efforts. In Mach Mining, the Supreme Court held that in assessing the 
Commission's conciliation efforts, a reviewing court may consider two 
things: (1) whether EEOC informed the employer about the specific 
allegation(s), describing what the employer has done and which 
employees (or class of employees) have suffered as a result; and (2) 
whether EEOC tried to communicate with the employer to give the 
employer an opportunity to remedy the alleged discrimination. It has 
been EEOC's practice to take these steps, and I recently re-affirmed 
these instructions to all field staff engaged in conciliation efforts 
following the Mach Mining decision. In addition, this May at a systemic 
investigators and coordinators training, participants discussed current 
conciliation practices to ensure the agency continues to engage in the 
steps outlined in the Mach Mining decision. We are also adding guidance 
on the Mach Mining decision to the training materials for current 
investigators who receive Intermediate Skills Training, to the New 
Investigator Training, and to a webinar on conciliations for EEOC 
staff.

    Question 8b. Your testimony stated that the ``Commission . . . will 
ensure that additional guidance and training for EEOC staff further 
advances the agency's effectiveness in [its] conciliation efforts.'' 
What, specifically, will this training and guidance include?
    Answer 8b. EEOC already has begun training on effective 
conciliation practices, and we will prioritize continued training on 
these issues. This August, the New Investigators Training Program, a 2-
week program for newly hired EEOC investigator staff nationwide, will 
deliver an updated segment on conciliation, settlement, and negotiation 
skills. This training will afford investigators hands-on experience 
through exercises involving a case study of conciliation. Our 
Intermediate Skills Training Program for experienced investigators 
includes model conciliation techniques and will be completed by all of 
our offices in fiscal year 2016. In addition, we are developing an 
agency-wide webinar focused solely on conciliation, which we will 
deliver to investigators, attorneys, and other field and headquarters 
staff. This training will cover best practices, including steps for 
conducting effective conciliations in systemic cases.

    Question 9a. In fiscal year 2013 and 2014, the Commission voted on 
litigation decisions in only 16 and 17 cases, respectively. This is 
just barely more than the 15 required. Do you believe the Commission 
should vote on additional litigation decisions?
    Answer 9a. The current delegation of litigation authority, adopted 
on a bipartisan basis, carefully balances the need for Commission 
oversight with the benefits of streamlined operations. With the goal of 
increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of its enforcement 
programs, a unanimous Commission delegated litigation authority to the 
General Counsel in the 1996 National Enforcement Plan. This action 
enabled the Commission to focus more of its time on significant policy 
issues.
    In the 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan (``SEP''), the Commission, 
on a bi-partisan basis, reaffirmed that delegation of authority, which 
requires that the Commission approve decisions to commence or intervene 
in litigation in significant cases that: (1) require a major 
expenditure of resources; (2) address a developing area of law; or (3) 
raise issues of public controversy. Further, the Commission must review 
and approve all recommendations for EEOC to participate as amicus 
curiae. In addition, the 2012 SEP added a further requirement directing 
that each EEOC district office present a minimum of one litigation 
recommendation for Commission consideration each fiscal year, including 
litigation recommendations based on the above criteria. The 2012 SEP 
also established quarterly reports and meetings to continually assess 
the success of the delegated authority. In addition, the General 
Counsel has consistently followed the delegation rules. The Commission 
has regularly concurred with the General Counsel's litigation 
recommendations. Of the 48 cases that the General Counsel submitted to 
the Commission from fiscal years 2011 through 2014, the Commission 
voted to approve all but one, and the General Counsel withdrew one 
litigation recommendation, following a tie vote.

    Question 9b. If not, is the Commission unable to handle voting on 
additional litigation decisions? If so, why?
    Answer 9b. The current delegation criteria strike an appropriate 
balance by requiring Commission approval of significant litigation 
where review is warranted, while ensuring that the agency uses its 
resources efficiently. Although the Commission could, and has in the 
past, reviewed additional litigation recommendations, this takes time 
from considering significant policy matters that could provide a 
substantial benefit in aiding employers and employees in understanding 
the law and preventing discrimination from occurring.

    Question 10.  The Commission is required to vote on decisions that 
``require a major expenditure of resources.'' What do you consider to 
be a major expenditure of resources?
    How does EEOC determine if a case will involve a major expenditure 
of resources--is there a policy in place?
    If so, please provide the policy. If not, please explain why you do 
not have a policy and whether you will consider if a policy is 
necessary.
    Answer 10. In determining whether cases ``require a major 
expenditure of resources,'' the Office of General Counsel carefully 
examines case cost estimates to understand their basis and makes 
adjustments, as necessary. Such determinations are reached on a case-
by-case basis. The General Counsel generally submits to the Commission 
all cases that he believes will require expenditures of more than 
$100,000.

    Question 11. In a September 2014 report, the EEOC Inspector General 
identified that EEOC does not have an adequate system in place to 
safeguard classified information. What are you doing to address the 
Inspector General's finding to make sure classified information is 
properly handled?
    Answer 11. EEOC works with classified information during the 
Federal sector EEO process. This information is maintained in paper-
based files or off-network only because EEOC does not have a classified 
network infrastructure. As noted in the Office of Inspector General 
September 2014 Semi-annual Report to Congress, at that time, EEOC did 
not have formal, documented policies and procedures to address the 
safeguarding, transfer, storage, or disposal of classified information. 
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the Office of the Chief 
Human Capital Officer jointly have developed a corrective action plan, 
which outlines formal documented policies and procedures to ensure that 
the 18 staff that currently can access classified information are 
safeguarding, transferring, storing, and disposing of it properly. In 
addition, I have designated the Deputy Chief Operating Officer as the 
senior agency official responsible for managing the Agency's classified 
national security information program in accordance with Executive 
Order 13526.

    Question 12a. In fiscal year 2014, EEOC hired nine social science 
research experts to support its systemic investigations. What are the 
job requirements and duties of an EEOC social science research expert?
    Answer 12a. The position of social scientist at EEOC requires a 4-
year degree in a behavioral or social science, 4 years of relevant 
experience, or some combination of the two. EEOC's social scientists 
provide guidance and direction to senior-level management, 
investigators, and trial attorneys on the quantitative analysis of 
employment discrimination investigations, especially with respect to 
social science methodology and employee selection processes. For 
example, our social scientists apply statistical/quantitative 
techniques and research design principles to analyze whether the data 
gathered during an investigation reflects statistical evidence of 
discrimination at a specific employer or union. Social scientists also 
apply the same knowledge and skills to analyzing data and conducting 
and interpreting studies to inform Commission goals and policies, to 
measure our effectiveness as an agency, and to provide information to 
the public concerning employment patterns, such as demographics and 
occupational trends. For example, in commemoration of the agency's 50th 
Anniversary, EEOC released American Experiences versus American 
Expectations, a report that examines private sector participation rates 
of women and minorities using EEO-1 data.

    Question 12b. Do the social science research experts work to reduce 
the backlog?
    Answer 12b. Social scientists at EEOC help reduce the pending 
inventory of active charges by analyzing relevant quantitative 
information developed in an investigation to determine whether the 
evidence supports the allegations at issue. The primary 
responsibilities of EEOC's social scientists are to develop statistical 
analyses, review employment practices, assist with the collection of 
relevant information from electronic databases as part of the 
investigation of charges, and offer analysis relevant to allegations of 
employment discrimination.

    Question 13. Fiscal Year 2014's PAR stated that the Employees' 
Viewpoint Survey found EEOC employees ``continue to express concern 
about disclosing a suspected violation of any law, rule, or regulation 
[to EEOC management] without fear of reprisal.'' Your testimony 
indicates that it's a priority to educate all employers about how to 
prevent retaliation in the workplace. What are you doing, specifically, 
to ensure EEOC employees feel comfortable reporting unlawful behavior 
to EEOC management?
    Answer 13. Ensuring that employees of EEOC feel comfortable coming 
forward to report concerns or violations of the law is a high priority. 
On June 17, I issued the agency's annual internal statement on 
preventing harassment and retaliation of EEOC employees, in conjunction 
with the Commission meeting entitled, ``Retaliation in the Workplace: 
Causes, Remedies and Strategies for Prevention.'' This statement 
emphasized that,

          ``I am firmly committed to ensuring that EEOC is a 
        retaliation-free workplace and that employees feel free to 
        report issues of concern without fear of retaliation or 
        reprisal.''

    Additionally, I have emphasized the importance of these issues 
consistently with our leadership. For example, in April, I convened a 
meeting of EEOC's senior staff, during which we discussed concerns 
about fear of reprisal reflected in the Employee Viewpoint Survey. I 
stressed to our leaders the importance of identifying the reasons for 
this perception and taking concrete steps to foster an environment 
where employees feel free to come forward with concerns without fear of 
reprisal.
    In fiscal year 2013, EEOC rolled out Diversity and Inclusion 
program training to senior leaders, supervisors, and managers. Since 
2014 we have been deploying this training to non-supervisory employees. 
These sessions provide employees an opportunity to share their ideas 
for creating a more inclusive work environment and ensuring that 
prohibited personnel practices, including retaliation, are not 
tolerated. Once this training is complete, we will implement new 
practices based on employee feedback.
    In addition, as part of our commitment to address retaliation and 
reprisal, in fiscal year 2015, EEOC began providing agency-wide 
training on preventing harassment in the workplace. This training 
establishes a system of accountability for ensuring a workplace free 
from unlawful harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, national 
origin, age, and disability. During this training, we also emphasize 
that EEOC will not tolerate retaliation against any employee for 
reporting matters under this policy or for assisting in any inquiry 
about such a report.
    Further, our New Manager Training and Fundamentals of Performance 
Management courses, delivered in conjunction with the Office of 
Personnel Management, include a module on prohibited personnel 
practices and merit system principles, as well as harassment and 
retaliation.
    We provide training on the No FEAR Act (NFA) to all agency staff 
every 2 years, as required by law, as well as to new employees within 
90 days of their entry into service with EEOC. I am committed to 
ensuring that all managers are aware of their responsibilities and that 
employees know their rights as identified under the NFA, including 
freedom from retaliation.
    To more broadly address concerns raised by the Federal Employee 
Viewpoint Survey, EEOC launched the BEST initiative--Building Employee 
Satisfaction Together. As part of that initiative, in fiscal year 2015 
and fiscal year 2016, we will incorporate a substantive discussion of 
retaliation and prohibited personnel practices in training to all 
employees and in our mandatory training for managers and supervisors. 
Specifically, our final quarterly Employee Education Webinars and 
Webinars for Managers and Supervisors for this fiscal year will address 
retaliation and prohibited personnel practices.

    Question 14. Last year, a court dismissed a case EEOC filed against 
CVS because it failed to first try to conciliate the claim. EEOC 
admitted in the case it did not attempt to conciliate the claim and 
instead took the position it didn't need to conciliate claims in this 
case. Why did EEOC take this position?
    Has EEOC always had the position that it did not need to conciliate 
certain claims?
    Do you intend to bring more cases without attempting to conciliate 
them first?
    Answer 14. EEOC's claim in the CVS action was that the employer 
conditioned receipt of severance pay on execution of a separation 
agreement that contained language that deterred employees from filing 
discrimination charges with EEOC and State Fair Employment Practice 
Agencies and interfered with employees' ability to communicate 
voluntarily with EEOC and the State agencies. The case was brought 
under section 707 of Title VII, which authorizes EEOC to bring suit to 
enjoin employers from ``engag[ing] in a pattern or practice of 
resistance to the full enjoyment of [Title VII rights].'' EEOC's suit 
alleged that CVS's use of the separation agreement constituted such 
resistance under section 707, and asked the court to enjoin CVS from 
further use of the separation agreement. No monetary relief was sought 
from CVS.
    Although EEOC did attempt to resolve the matter with CVS prior to 
filing suit, EEOC's position is that suits brought under section 707 to 
enjoin practices that constitute resistance to the full enjoyment of 
title VII rights do not require either a charge of discrimination or 
conciliation efforts. EEOC also brings suits under section 707 based on 
charges of discrimination that allege violations of sections 703 or 704 
of Title VII. EEOC has always attempted to conciliate such claims prior 
to bringing suit and will continue to do so.
    EEOC had not taken a position prior to CVS on whether actions under 
section 707 to enjoin resistance to the enjoyment of title VII rights 
required conciliation efforts. However, we have argued the general 
principle that some of the administrative prerequisites to filing a 
suit do not apply under Section 707. See EEOC Reply Brief in Serrano & 
EEOC v. Cintas Corp., filed July 11, 2011, available at: http://
www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/cintas1.txt.
    EEOC appreciates the importance of resolving matters short of court 
action, and as in CVS the agency always attempts to settle claims 
voluntarily even where we do not believe conciliation is required by 
statute. EEOC actions to enforce prior resolutions, such as 
conciliation agreements and consent decrees, are not subject to 
statutory conciliation requirements (because they are brought to 
enforce provisions of the agreements rather than of a statute); but 
here as well the agency always attempts to obtain voluntary compliance 
prior to filing suit.

    Question 15a. In 2011, EEOC began an investigation of 
Massachusetts-based Marylou's Coffee for alleged age discrimination. 
Was that investigation based on a complaint?
    Answer 15a. EEOC's Boston Area Office filed an ADEA directed charge 
against Marylou's Coffee on February 28, 2011. The charge was closed on 
October 21, 2012, with a finding that there was no reasonable cause to 
believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in 
investigation. Pursuant to our recordkeeping policy, we maintain charge 
files up to 2 years after they are closed. Since this 2-year period 
expired, no other information on the charge is available.

    Question 15b. Is the investigation ongoing? If not, how and when 
was it resolved?
    Answer 15b. The charge was closed on October 21, 2012, with a 
finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that 
discrimination occurred.

    Question 16. Earlier this year, Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI) 
introduced the EEOC Transparency and Accountability Act (H.R. 550), 
which would, among other things, require EEOC to report additional 
statistics and figures in its annual Performance and Accountability 
Report (PAR). Would you consider expanding the PAR to include the 
following information:

    a. The number of investigations initiated that fiscal year by a 
directed investigation or commissioner's charge and the nature of the 
alleged discrimination;
    EEOC would be open to expanding the reporting in the PAR to include 
information relating to the initiation of directed investigations or 
the filing of Commissioner charges, along with a summary of the bases 
and issues alleged in these charges/directed investigations during the 
fiscal year.

    b. The number of investigations ongoing that fiscal year initiated 
by a directed investigation or commissioner's charge and the nature of 
the alleged discrimination;
    EEOC would be open to expanding the reporting in the PAR to include 
information relating to the number of investigations ongoing during the 
fiscal year that were initiated in prior years as directed 
investigations or the filing of commissioner charges, along with a 
summary of the bases and issues alleged in these charges/directed 
investigations.

    c. The number of lawsuits filed that fiscal year based on a 
directed investigation or commissioner's charge and whether that 
litigation decision was approved by a vote of the majority of the 
commissioners;

    EEOC would be open to expanding the reporting in the PAR to include 
information relating to the number of lawsuits filed that fiscal year 
based on a directed investigation or commissioner charge.

    d. Each instance in which EEOC was ordered to pay attorney's fees 
or court fees and costs or sanctioned by the court, including the 
amount of such fees and costs ordered to be paid, the amount of fees 
and costs actually paid by EEOC, and the reason for the fee or cost 
award, regardless of whether EEOC is appealing the decision;
    EEOC would be open to expanding the reporting in the PAR to include 
a description of final attorney's fees awarded against the agency based 
on the defendant having prevailed on the merits of EEOC's suit.

    e. The number of cases of systemic discrimination brought in court 
by EEOC under section 706 or 707 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 
the nature of the alleged discrimination; and
    EEOC would be open to expanding the reporting in the PAR to include 
the number of cases of systemic discrimination brought in court by EEOC 
under section 706 or 707 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with a 
summary of the bases and issues alleged in the suit.

    f. EEOC's success rate at the appellate level. If not, please 
explain your reasoning for excluding each of those statistics.
    EEOC would be open to expanding the reporting in the PAR to include 
EEOC's success rate at the appellate level.

    Question 17. EEOC's fiscal year 2014 PAR does not include 
information about the percentage of favorable resolutions EEOC achieved 
in circuit court. Please provide the number and percentage of favorable 
resolutions EEOC achieved in circuit court in all cases and 
specifically in merit cases since 2010. Please provide the same 
information for district court cases.
    Answer 17. The information concerning circuit court favorable 
resolutions is being compiled and will be provided when it is 
available.
    The information concerning district court favorable resolutions is 
as follows:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Fiscal Year                             Filed             Favorable            Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010................................................                286                 266                  93
2011................................................                270                 243                  90
2012................................................                247                 227                  92
2013................................................                213                 186                  87
2014................................................                136                 126                  93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              senator paul
    Question 1. Do EEOC personnel, including the Office of the 
Inspector General, currently receive firearms training? Has EEOC 
personnel received firearms training in the past?
    Answer 1. EEOC has three GS-1811 criminal investigators who 
investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. They are assigned to the Office of 
Inspector General and receive quarterly training, including firearms 
training, at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, as part of 
the Criminal Investigator Training Program.

    Question 2. Has EEOC ever purchased, provided, or accepted firearms 
and ammunition of any type to its personnel for use, including for 
firearms training, by its personnel?
    Answer 2. EEOC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has purchased 
three firearms and ammunition to maintain the training qualifications 
of the three GS-1811 criminal investigators, pursuant to the U.S. 
Attorney General's Guidelines for Offices of Inspector General with 
Statutory Law Enforcement Authority, issued December 8, 2003.

    Question 3. If EEOC personnel are supplied with firearms, what 
selection criteria are used to determine which employees are issued 
firearms?
    Answer 3. The only EEOC personnel authorized to be issued firearms 
are the Office of Inspector General GS-1811 criminal investigators who 
have been trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and 
maintain their firearm qualifications standards.

    Question 4. What is EEOC policy with regard to providing firearms 
to its personnel and under what circumstances would an agent of EEOC 
carry a firearm when discharging their duties?
    Answer 4. EEOC's Office of Inspector General would allow only GS-
1811 criminal investigators to carry firearms, on a case-by-case basis 
or in conjunction with a joint task force, when documentation supports 
the need, a determination of need has been established, and the U.S. 
Department of Justice has granted authorization.
                            senator collins
    Question. Under title VII, only the Commission is authorized to 
commence litigation. I understand, however, that the Commission has 
delegated litigation authority (with a few exceptions) to the General 
Counsel of the Commission. I further understand that the current 
General Counsel, Mr. Lopez, has delegated much of his litigation 
authority to the Commission's district offices. According to Mr. Lopez, 
this delegation promotes ``an entrepreneurial approach'' to litigation 
in the district offices. It appears that the Commission does not 
authorize the vast majority of litigation filed by the EEOC. For 
example, in fiscal year 2013, only 16 out of 131 cases (12 percent) 
were brought to the Commission for a vote; in fiscal year 2014, only 17 
out of 133 cases (13 percent) were brought to the Commission for a 
vote. Yet one of the most significant duties of the Commission is to 
determine when to initiate litigation. Given the importance of EEOC 
litigation, please describe the justifications for the Commission's 
current delegation of litigation authority to the General Counsel. In 
addition, please describe the justifications for Mr. Lopez's further 
delegation of that litigation authority to regional offices.
    Answer. As noted in the earlier response, the current delegation of 
litigation authority, adopted on a bi-partisan basis, carefully 
balances the need for Commission oversight with the benefits of 
streamlined operations. With the goal of increasing the efficiency and 
effectiveness of its enforcement programs, a unanimous Commission 
delegated litigation authority to the General Counsel in the 1996 
National Enforcement Plan. This action enabled the Commission to focus 
more of its time on significant policy issues.
    In the 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan, on a bi-partisan basis, the 
Commission reaffirmed that delegation of authority and established 
quarterly reports and meetings to continually assess the success of the 
delegated authority. The Commission reaffirmed the delegation criteria 
``with the goal of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
agency's enforcement programs.''
    Currently, the Commission must approve decisions to commence or 
intervene in litigation in significant cases that: (1) require a major 
expenditure of resources; (2) address a developing area of law; or (3) 
raise issues of public controversy. In addition, the Commission must 
review and approve all recommendations for EEOC to participate as 
amicus curiae. The 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan also directs that 
each EEOC district office present a minimum of one litigation 
recommendation for Commission consideration each fiscal year, including 
litigation recommendations based on the above criteria.
    Under the 1995 National Enforcement Plan, the General Counsel was 
authorized and encouraged to redelegate litigation authority to the 
regional attorneys, as appropriate, because it furthers efficiency, 
enhances accountability, improves responsiveness to local issues, and 
encourages the exercise of sound judgment. Note, however, all proposed 
litigation--including those cases re-delegated to regional attorneys--
are reviewed by OGC prior to filing and, after such review, the OGC 
sometimes modifies or advises the regional attorney to withdraw the 
proposed litigation.
    There is no difference in quality or success among cases voted on 
by the Commission, delegated to the General Counsel, or delegated to 
regional attorneys. Indeed, several significant successes have emerged 
from cases approved by regional attorneys under delegated authority, 
including the Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 
135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015), a landmark religious accommodation case, as 
well as the $1.5 million jury verdict in EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, 
783 F.3d 1057 (6th Cir. 2015), a multi-victim sexual harassment case 
that was tried in Memphis, TN and affirmed on appeal.
                            senator roberts
    Question 1. In February 2012, EEOC voted in its Strategic Plan to 
adopt a Quality Control Plan to measure the quality of investigations 
and conciliations. Since then the vote to implement this plan has been 
delayed twice. EEOC's Inspector General (IG) said this should be a high 
priority for the Commission as it could effectively and efficiently 
reduce the backlog. What is the status of the QCP and when do you plan 
to vote on it?
    Answer 1. Ensuring the quality of EEOC's investigations and 
conciliations is a high priority of mine, and I am working with my 
fellow commissioners to gain consensus on a plan to strengthen the 
quality of our work. While the previous Commission was unable to reach 
consensus on a draft Quality Control Plan (QCP), the agency has 
proceeded with strategies to improve quality, including incorporating 
quality measures into performance plans, conducting additional staff 
training on best practices, implementing more effective management 
strategies throughout EEOC, and formulating standard operating 
procedures, as required by the SEP, which will address many of the 
quality control recommendations included in the draft QCP.

    Question 2. If an employer is prohibited from asking an applicant 
his/her age on an application, how can a company be sued for age 
discrimination for failing to meet undetermined quotas?
    Answer 2. The ADEA does not require employers to meet any hiring or 
employment quotas based on age. Also, the ADEA does not prohibit 
employers from asking an applicant's age on an application; however, 
employers generally do not ask applicants their age because age is 
usually an irrelevant factor in employment decisions. Where an employer 
asks an applicant his or her age, this may be evidence of 
discrimination, if the employer relies on that information to deny an 
older applicant the job.

 Response by P. David Lopez to Questions of Senator Alexander, Senator 
               Paul, Senator Collins, and Senator Roberts

                           senator alexander
    Question 1. Does EEOC ever utilize a third-party to find, or help 
find, potential plaintiffs before or during an investigation or 
litigation? This includes, but is not limited to, Web sites, contracted 
legal services or investigative services, contract employees, social 
media, etc.
    If so, since 2010, please list each instance where this has 
occurred and the amount of resources spent in each instance.
    Answer 1. When an employer fails to keep records, it may be 
difficult for EEOC to obtain information on those harmed or potentially 
harmed by a discriminatory policy or practice. On rare occasions, after 
an investigation has been completed and during conciliation, an 
employer who has not kept the records required by law may agree to web 
postings, advertisements, or other means to identify potentially 
aggrieved individuals. In these circumstances, it is generally the 
respondent who creates and pays for advertisements.
    In certain larger investigations, EEOC may contract for the 
services of temporary paralegals or support personnel to contact and 
interview individuals who may be witnesses or who may have been harmed 
by the discriminatory policy or practice alleged. During the 
investigation, these paralegals or support personnel may be required to 
search for contact information where the information on file is 
inaccurate, missing, or outdated. The time these contract personnel 
spend identifying potentially aggrieved individuals is not recorded 
separately from the time they spend preparing files, organizing 
documents, and entering data.
    In litigation, EEOC has occasionally contracted with a third-
party--such as placing ads with a newspaper or radio station--to find 
individuals for whom the agency seeks to obtain relief.\1\ We have 
identified three instances since 2010 where EEOC has contracted with a 
third-party during litigation to find or help find individuals who may 
be entitled to relief in the litigation. This occurs when we have been 
unable to identify members of the protected class at issue from the 
employer's records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ EEOC is the ``plaintiff '' in its litigation, and individuals 
for whom the agency may pursue relief are considered aggrieved or 
potentially aggrieved individuals.

     In 2011, in a case filed against a restaurant with two 
locations for alleged race discrimination against African-Americans in 
hiring and job assignments, EEOC contracted for radio ads, at a cost of 
$7,995, to help identify individuals affected by the discrimination 
alleged. The lawsuit was settled in 2014.
     In 2012, in a case filed against an automobile shipment 
company for alleged failure to hire African-Americans because of race 
and alleged discrimination against applicants with disabilities based 
on pre-employment medical inquiries, EEOC contracted for newspaper ads, 
at a cost of $3,525, to help identify individuals affected by the 
discrimination alleged. This lawsuit is pending.
     In 2012, in a case filed against a restaurant with six 
locations for alleged failure to hire individuals 40 years old and over 
because of age, EEOC contracted for radio ads, at a cost of $2,475, to 
help identify individuals affected by the discrimination alleged. The 
lawsuit was settled in 2013.

    Question 2. During the May 19 hearing, you maintained that EEOC 
does not use, or contract for the use of, Craigslist to find potential 
plaintiffs. As you are aware, a Craigslist ad was posted soliciting 
plaintiffs in EEOC's lawsuit against Texas Roadhouse, and it appeared 
to have been posted by EEOC. Indeed, in part, the ad stated ``e-mail us 
at [email protected].'' The ad has now been removed. Does EEOC view this ad 
to be fraudulent?
    Did EEOC report this ad as fraudulent to Craigslist?
    If so, on what date did EEOC report the ad as fraudulent and by 
what means?
    Answer 2. The Craigslist ad to which you refer duplicated language 
about the Texas Roadhouse case found on EEOC's Web site. The ad was not 
placed or authorized by EEOC. EEOC contacted Craigslist on May 26 and 
informed them that the ad was not authorized by EEOC and requested 
information about the posting. EEOC contacted Craigslist again on June 
2, 2015, to gather information about the posting of the ad. Both times, 
EEOC was advised by Craigslist that a subpoena was necessary before any 
information would be released. EEOC staff then referred the matter to 
EEOC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) for further review.
    Based on information gained through a subpoena filed by counsel 
representing Texas Roadhouse in our pending suit against them, we have 
learned that the person who placed the ad did so from an Internet 
address in Alaska and used an e-mail address that appears to belong to 
an individual that has never been employed by EEOC. Additionally, the 
IP address used to post the ad was not an EEOC IP address.

    Question 3. Does EEOC ever review Craigslist to search for evidence 
of potential discrimination?
    If so, how often and how many resources are spent on these efforts?
    Answer 3. Over the course of the past 5\1/2\ years (fiscal year 
2010-15 to date), EEOC has expended a limited amount of resources to 
review Craigslist advertisements to identify evidence of 
discrimination. For example, sometimes EEOC learns of potentially 
discriminatory ads on Craigslist from a member of the public or during 
the course of an investigation. Investigators would go directly to 
Craigslist to confirm those allegations. We estimate that during this 
5\1/2\-year period, investigative staff spent a total of approximately 
200 hours to identify evidence of discrimination in ads on Craigslist. 
In some instances, for example, offices identified potentially 
discriminatory job advertisements that may have excluded applicants 
based on gender or age. Such review occurs at the investigative stage 
and is therefore not supervised by the General Counsel.

    Question 4. When you believe a case has a high likelihood of 
creating ``public controversy,'' you are required to submit that case 
to the Commission for a vote prior to commencing litigation. Given the 
extensive congressional concerns with EEOC's investigation of 
accounting firms and their partnership agreements, and Chair Yang's 
statement at the hearing that if you were to recommend litigation in 
this area ``it would be something that would come up to the 
Commission,'' will you commit to submitting to commissioners for a vote 
any future case alleging age discrimination against an accounting firm 
due to the mandatory retirement age included in their partnership 
agreement--including Deloitte, KPMG, and any other firm currently under 
investigation?
    Answer 4. During my tenure to date, I have never approved on my own 
authority a case alleging age discrimination against an accounting firm 
because of a mandatory retirement age included in a partnership 
agreement. I have submitted one such recommendation to the Commission 
for a vote based on my assessment that the case was likely to generate 
public controversy. As I have noted to this committee before, I intend 
to continue doing so.

    Question 5. At the May 19, hearing, I expressed concern that you 
continued to rely on expert witness testimony in one case (EEOC v. 
Freeman) on appeal in the Fourth Circuit of Appeals after the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals strongly rebuked the same expert testimony in 
another case (EEOC v. Kaplan). In response, you stated, ``it wasn't 
like we were rebuked in one case and then went back and used the 
witness; both of those cases were pending at the same time.'' While 
both cases were pending at the same time, after EEOC lost Kaplan in the 
Sixth Circuit, it submitted a reply appellate brief in Freeman and 
presented oral argument. Why did EEOC not withdrawal the appeal in 
Freeman after EEOC lost the Kaplan case?
    Is EEOC still using Kevin Murphy as an expert witness?
    How much has EEOC paid Kevin Murphy in cases it has lost?
    How much has EEOC paid Kevin Murphy in total?
    Answer 5. EEOC used Kevin Murphy as an expert witness in the 
Freeman and Kaplan cases, but the two appeals raised different issues. 
In Freeman, EEOC argued that the district court abused its discretion 
in excluding the reports as unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow 
Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), because purported flaws in 
Murphy's analyses concerned data, not methodology, and therefore 
concerned weight/credibility issues for trial, not admissibility.
    By contrast, EEOC v. Kaplan, 748 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 2014) was a 
case in which the court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling 
on the unreliability of an untested racial identification methodology. 
In short, Kaplan primarily concerned methodology, which was not an 
issue in Freeman, and so was not directly relevant to the Freeman 
appeal.
    EEOC is not currently using Kevin Murphy as an expert witness in 
any pending litigation and has not used him as an expert in any case 
aside from Freeman and Kaplan. EEOC has paid a total of $224,513 to the 
entities Landy Litigation Support Group and Lamorinda Consulting for 
work on these two cases; Kevin Murphy was a consultant or principal for 
each entity and the entities employed multiple adjunct experts who 
assisted him in completing the work.

    Question 6. Fiscal Year 2014's Performance and Accountability 
Report stated that the Employees' Viewpoint Survey found EEOC employees 
``continue to express concern about disclosing a suspected violation of 
any law, rule, or regulation [to EEOC management] without fear of 
reprisal.'' Chair Yang's testimony indicates that it's a priority to 
educate all employers about how to prevent retaliation in the 
workplace. What are you doing, specifically, to ensure EEOC employees 
feel comfortable reporting unlawful behavior to EEOC management?
    Answer 6. As General Counsel, I expect the highest standard of 
ethical and professional conduct from all OGC staff. Therefore, I take 
allegations of retaliation very seriously, and I have communicated my 
open door policy to all OGC staff. Please be assured that my office 
promptly investigates all allegations of retaliation asserted by OGC 
staff in accordance with the agency's established procedures.
    In fiscal year 2013, EEOC rolled out Diversity and Inclusion 
program training to senior leaders, supervisors, and managers. 
Currently, we are deploying this training to non-supervisory employees. 
These sessions provide employees an opportunity to share their ideas 
for creating a more inclusive work environment and ensuring that 
prohibited personnel practices, including retaliation, are not 
tolerated. Once this training is complete, we will implement new 
practices based on employee feedback.
    In addition, as part of our commitment to address retaliation and 
reprisal, in fiscal year 2015, EEOC began providing agency-wide 
training on preventing harassment in the workplace. This training 
establishes a system of accountability for ensuring a workplace free 
from unlawful harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, national 
origin, age, or disability. During this training, we also emphasize 
that EEOC will not tolerate retaliation against any employee for 
reporting matters under this policy or for assisting in any inquiry 
about such a report.
    Further, our New Manager Training and Fundamentals of Performance 
Management courses, delivered in conjunction with the Office of 
Personnel Management, include modules on prohibited personnel practices 
and merit system principles, as well as harassment and retaliation.
    To more broadly address concerns raised by the Federal Employee 
Viewpoint Survey, EEOC launched the BEST initiative--Building Employee 
Satisfaction Together. As part of that initiative, in fiscal year 2015 
and fiscal year 2016, we will incorporate a substantive discussion of 
retaliation and prohibited personnel practices in training to all 
employees and in our mandatory training for managers and supervisors. 
Specifically, our final quarterly Employee Education Webinars and 
Webinars for Managers and Supervisors for this fiscal year will address 
retaliation and prohibited personnel practices.

    Question 7. The Commission is required to vote on decisions that 
``require a major expenditure of resources.'' What do you consider to 
be a major expenditure of resources?
    How does EEOC determine if a case will involve a major expenditure 
of resources--is there a policy in place? If so, please provide the 
policy. If not, please explain why you do not have a policy and whether 
you will consider if a policy is necessary.
    Answer 7. In determining whether cases ``require a major 
expenditure of resources,'' I carefully examine case cost estimates to 
understand their basis and make adjustments, as necessary. Such 
determinations are reached on a case-by-case basis. I generally submit 
to the Commission all cases that I believe will cost more than 
$100,000.

    Question 8. Please provide the dates by which you will publish the 
Office of General Counsel Annual Report for each of the following 
fiscal years: 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.
    Answer 8. OGC's Annual Report for fiscal year 2012 has been issued 
and posted on the EEOC Web site. We plan to issue the fiscal year 2013 
OGC Annual Report by September 30, 2015, the fiscal year 2014 OGC 
Annual Report by December 31, 2015, and the fiscal year 2015 OGC Annual 
Report by March 31, 2016.

    Question 9. During your confirmation process last year, you were 
asked:

          ``If confirmed, will you include in the Office of General 
        Counsel annual reports the number of times, and the amounts, 
        EEOC is ordered to pay defendants in attorney's fees and other 
        costs each year, including those instances where fees and costs 
        were awarded but not necessarily paid.''

    You responded, ``Yes.'' The fiscal year 2011 report did not include 
any fee awards. When contacted by HELP Committee staff, EEOC staff 
stated,

          ``there were no final fee awards from fiscal year 2011 to 
        include in the fiscal year 2011 annual report. Going forward, 
        we will include final fee awards in the annual reports.''

    The question you answered in the affirmative during the 
confirmation process did not differentiate between final fee awards and 
fee awards on appeal and therefore encompassed all fees awarded, 
regardless of whether they are a final award.
    Accordingly, do you plan to adhere to your earlier commitment to 
including all fees and costs awarded, regardless of whether EEOC is 
appealing the decision, in all future Office of General Counsel Annual 
Reports as you stated you would during your confirmation process?
    Answer 9. When I answered ``Yes'' to the question at my 
confirmation hearing regarding including attorney's fees awards against 
EEOC in the Office of General Counsel annual reports, I did not see the 
need to include the terms ``final awards'' in my answer, because in 
litigation almost no determination by a trial court has legal effect 
until the party opposing the determination has exhausted its appeal 
rights. As I discussed at the May 19 oversight hearing, the appellate 
courts have reversed and vacated high profile fee awards against the 
Commission because they lacked an adequate legal or factual foundation. 
Therefore, I understood the question to refer to legally final awards 
of attorney's fees. Consistent with how trial court determinations are 
treated in litigation, I intend in future annual reports to include 
only attorney's fees awards against EEOC which either have not been 
appealed by the agency or which have been affirmed on appeal. These 
attorney's fees awards will be included in annual reports for the years 
in which the time for EEOC to appeal expired without an appeal being 
taken or in which a court of appeals decision affirming the award 
(either all or in part) was issued.
    I also want to clarify that I interpreted ``attorney's fees 
awards'' to mean only those fees awarded to the defendant as a 
``prevailing party'' after a determination by the trial court on the 
merits of EEOC's suit. Attorney's fees sometimes are awarded to parties 
prior to a determination on the merits due to events occurring during 
the litigation process, usually involving discovery matters. Such fees 
are sometimes awarded as sanctions, or sometimes based just on a 
party's success on a particular discovery dispute. Unlike attorney's 
fees based on ``prevailing party'' status, which in EEOC cases can be 
recovered only by defendants, not by the government, attorney's fees 
awards prior to a determination on the merits can be made to either 
party, and are often recovered by EEOC. Regardless of my initial 
understanding of the committee's questions about including attorney's 
fees awards against EEOC in the Office of General Counsel's annual 
reports, beginning with fiscal year 2014 EEOC will include all final 
attorney's fees awards against EEOC, whether made prior to or following 
a determination on the merits, in the annual reports, as well as fee 
awards secured by the Commission against defendants.
                              senator paul
    Question. Does EEOC Office of General Counsel use interns who 
receive no financial compensation or stipend to assist with its 
directed investigations and litigation?
    If yes, provide specific information with regard to the duties 
performed by interns, or policies related to delegation of duties 
normally performed by paid staff to interns during investigation and 
litigation.
    Answer. EEOC uses intern volunteers in many offices to assist with 
our litigation matters including legal research, drafting legal memos 
and interviewing potential claimants. Many interns receive third-party 
grants or law school credit for their internship, and thus we ensure 
that the experience for all interns at EEOC is educational.
                            senator collins
    Question. Under title VII, only the Commission is authorized to 
commence litigation. I understand, however, that the Commission has 
delegated litigation authority (with a few exceptions) to the General 
Counsel of the Commission. I further understand that the current 
General Counsel, Mr. Lopez, has delegated much of his litigation 
authority to the Commission's district offices. According to Mr. Lopez, 
this delegation promotes ``an entrepreneurial approach'' to litigation 
in the district offices. It appears that the Commission does not 
authorize the vast majority of litigation filed by the EEOC. For 
example, in fiscal year 2013, only 16 out of 131 cases (12 percent) 
were brought to the Commission for a vote; in fiscal year 2014, only 17 
out of 133 cases (13 percent) were brought to the Commission for a 
vote. Yet one of the most significant duties of the Commission is to 
determine when to initiate litigation. Given the importance of EEOC 
litigation, please describe the justifications for the Commission's 
current delegation of litigation authority to the General Counsel. In 
addition, please describe the justifications for Mr. Lopez's further 
delegation of that litigation authority to regional offices.
    The current delegation of litigation authority, adopted by the 
Commission on a bipartisan basis, carefully balances the need for 
Commission oversight with the benefits of streamlined operations. With 
the goal of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of its 
enforcement programs, a unanimous Commission delegated litigation 
authority to the General Counsel in the 1996 National Enforcement Plan. 
This action enabled the Commission to focus more of its time on 
significant policy issues.
    In its December 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan, on a bipartisan 
basis, the Commission reaffirmed that delegation of authority and 
established quarterly reports and meetings to continually assess the 
success of the delegated authority. The Commission reaffirmed the 
delegation criteria ``with the goal of increasing the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the agency's enforcement programs.''
    Currently, the Commission must approve decisions to commence or 
intervene in litigation in significant cases that: (1) require a major 
expenditure of resources; (2) address a developing area of law; or (3) 
raise issues of public controversy. In addition, the Commission must 
review and approve all recommendations for EEOC to participate as 
amicus curiae. The 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan also directs that 
each EEOC district office present a minimum of one litigation 
recommendation for Commission consideration each fiscal year, including 
litigation recommendations based on the above criteria.
    Under the 1995 National Enforcement Plan, the General Counsel was 
authorized and encouraged to redelegate litigation authority to the 
regional attorneys, as appropriate, because it furthers efficiency, 
enhances accountability, improves responsiveness to local issues, and 
encourages the exercise of sound judgment. Note, however, all proposed 
litigation--including those cases redelegated to regional attorneys--
are reviewed by my office prior to filing and, after such review, the 
OGC sometimes modifies the litigation recommendation or advises the 
regional attorney to withdraw the proposed litigation.
    There is no difference in quality or success among cases voted on 
by the Commission, delegated to the General Counsel, or delegated to 
regional attorneys. Indeed, several significant successes have emerged 
from cases approved by regional attorneys under delegated authority, 
including the Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 
135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015), a land-mark religious accommodation case, as 
well as the $1.5 million jury verdict in EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, 
783 F.3d 1057 (6th Cir. 2015), a multi-victim sexual harassment case 
that was tried in Memphis, TN and affirmed on appeal.

                            Senator Roberts

    Question 1. Has EEOC conducted an analysis of the cost--both in 
dollars and staff time--of investigations and lawsuits against 
employers without a complainant, including the accounting firms and 
restaurants you're currently investigating? Will you please provide me 
that break down?
    Answer 1. We have not conducted such an analysis. We do not track 
our resources in a way that allows us to separate out the dollars and 
staff time spent working on specific investigations and litigation.

    Question 2. If an employer is prohibited from asking an applicant 
his/her age on an application, how can a company be sued for age 
discrimination for failing to meet undetermined quotas?
    The ADEA does not require employers to meet any hiring or 
employment quotas based on age. Although the ADEA does not prohibit 
employers from asking an applicant's age on an application, employers 
generally do not ask applicants their age because age is usually an 
irrelevant factor in employment decisions. Where an employer asks an 
applicant his or her age, this may be evidence of discrimination, if 
the employer relies on that information to deny an older applicant the 
job. In many cases, employers can surmise an applicant's approximate 
age through observation of the applicant or through information 
provided in an application or resume regarding work experience, 
education, or other activities.

    [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                   
```