[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES OF THE EEOC: EXAMINING THE CONCERNS OF STAKEHOLDERS ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE U.S. House of Representatives ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 10, 2014 __________ Serial No. 113-59 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education or Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 88-194 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015 __________________________________________________________________________ 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 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member California Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Joe Wilson, South Carolina Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Tom Price, Georgia Carolyn McCarthy, New York Kenny Marchant, Texas John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Duncan Hunter, California Rush Holt, New Jersey David P. Roe, Tennessee Susan A. Davis, California Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tim Walberg, Michigan Timothy H. Bishop, New York Matt Salmon, Arizona David Loebsack, Iowa Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Joe Courtney, Connecticut Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado Larry Bucshon, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Northern Mariana Islands Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania Mark Pocan, Wisconsin Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Mark Takano, California Richard Hudson, North Carolina Luke Messer, Indiana Bradley Byrne, Alabama Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director Megan O'Reilly, Minority Staff Director ------ SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman John Kline, Minnesota Joe Courtney, Connecticut, Tom Price, Georgia Ranking Member Duncan Hunter, California Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Timothy H. Bishop, New York Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Larry Bucshon, Indiana Mark Pocan, Wisconsin Richard Hudson, North Carolina Mark Takano, California C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 10, 2014.................................... 1 Statement of Members: Courtney, Hon. Joe, Ranking member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections................................................ 4 Prepared statement of.................................... 5 Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections................................................ 1 Prepared statement of.................................... 3 Statement of Witnesses: Bone, Lucia, Partner, Founder, The Sue Weaver C.A.U.S.E., Flower Mound, TX........................................... 73 Prepared statement of.................................... 75 Ifill, Sherrilyn, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, New York, NY................. 62 Prepared statement of.................................... 64 McCracken, Todd, President, Normal Small Business Association, Washington, DC................................ 54 Prepared statement of.................................... 56 Olson, Camille, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL...... 7 Prepared statement of.................................... 10 Additional Submissions: Mr. Courtney: Prepared statement of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission............................................. 82 EEOC Sues Less, but Tactics Draw Flak.................... 217 LAW360 'EEOC Overreach' Analysis Distorted The Record.... 229 Ms Olson: Prepared Statement of.................................... 236 Chairman Walberg: Letter dated June 13, 2014, from Fishman, Nick, Executive Vice President,Chief Marketing Officer, Employee Screen IQ..................................................... 257 Letter dated June 24, 2014, from Gootkind, Judith, A., Chair, National Association of Professional Background Screeners.............................................. 259 Letter dated June 18, 2014, from Lipnic, Victoria, A., Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner........................................... 265 Letter dated June 24, 2014, from Nichols, R., Leslie, National Vice President, Child and Club Safety, Boys & Girls Clubs of America................................. 271 THE REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES OF THE EEOC: EXAMINING THE CONCERNS OF STAKEHOLDERS ---------- Tuesday, June 10, 2014 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, D.C. ---------- The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Walberg, Kline, Rokita, Hudson, Courtney, and Takano. Staff present: Molly Conway, Professional Staff Member; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Christie Herman, Professional Staff Member; Benjamin Hoog, Senior Legislative Assistant; Marvin Kaplan, Workforce Policy Counsel; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; James Martin, Professional Staff Member; Zachary McHenry, Senior Staff Assistant; Daniel Murner, Press Assistant; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Loren Sweatt, Senior Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Melissa Greenberg, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Eunice Ikene, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Leticia Mederos, Minority Director of Labor Policy; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Megan O'Reilly, Minority Staff Director; and Michael Zola, Minority Deputy Staff Director. Chairman Walberg. A quorum being present, the subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. I would like to welcome our guests and thank our witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate the time you have spared to be with us this morning. Today's hearing is part of our continued oversight of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Last year, we convened a hearing to broadly examine the Commission's regulatory and enforcement agenda. Members raised concerns with a number of EEOC policies that many believe are not in the best interest of workers and employers. For example, under President Obama's watch, EEOC has made it more difficult for employers to ensure the safety of their customers and clients. So-called guidance issued in 2012 severely restricts employer use of criminal background checks during the hiring process. All Americans expect employers to hire a safe and responsible workforce, especially when workers are employed in areas that require the public's trust, such as when they enter private homes, transport children to school, or care for aging relatives. Later, we will learn in disturbing detail why, in certain occupations, the background check of prospective employees is critical to public safety. Ms. Bone, we are grateful that you have joined us this morning to share your family's personal story. The death of your sister, Sue, could have been prevented. We cannot fathom the pain you and your family are forced to bear. There isn't a member in Congress who wouldn't be outraged if his or her loved ones suffered the same fate as your sister. But because of EEOC overreach, there are now policies in place making it harder for employers to do what is right. Some employers will simply avoid the bureaucratic hassle of conducting background checks or risk of being second-guessed by the federal government, which means more Americans might be put in harm's way. Adding insult to injury, EEOC denied the public an opportunity to comment on its radical change in policy. And we understand the commission is considering further guidance that would hinder employers' ability to look at the credit histories of prospective employees. It is time for EEOC to stop this nonsense, withdraw its flawed guidance, and ensure employers use the tools available to protect the men and women they serve. Unfortunately, misguided regulatory schemes weren't the only concerns raised at our last EEOC hearing. We also discussed the commission's failed approach to enforcement. Instead of commission members working together to resolve claims of discrimination raised by American workers, we have an unaccountable general counsel pursuing cases of systemic discrimination without any allegation of wrongdoing. The results have been disappointing, to say the least. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently wrote, and I quote--``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.'' Another federal court described an EEOC case as, and I quote again--``theory in search of facts to support it.'' Other courts have found EEOC legal complaints as frivolous, unreasonable, and untenable. Last year, we raised these and other concerns to Commission Chair Berrien and urged her to change course. Unfortunately, our concerns continue to be ignored. I am hopeful that through today's hearing and our oversight of EEOC, the commission will adopt a more responsible approach that better serves the needs of workers and employers. We are here today because we want to ensure these vital laws and the protections they provide American workers are properly enforced. Every American deserves a fair shot at finding a job, regardless of age, disability, sex, religion, or race. When they are denied that fair shot, workers rely upon EEOC to make it right and hold bad actors accountable. That is the mission of this important agency, and it is our responsibility to make sure EEOC is getting the job done. Again, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us and for contributing to this important effort this morning. With that, I will now yield to senior Democrat of the committee, my colleague, Representative Joe Courtney, for his opening remarks. [The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Good morning. I would like to welcome our guests and thank our witnesses for joining us. We appreciate the time you've spared to be with us this morning. Today's hearing is part of our continued oversight of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Last year we convened a hearing to broadly examine the commission's regulatory and enforcement agenda. Members raised concerns with a number of EEOC policies that many believe are not in the best interest of workers and employers. For example, under President Obama's watch, EEOC has made it more difficult for employers to ensure the safety of their customers and clients. So-called guidance issued in 2012 severely restricts employer use of criminal background checks during the hiring process. All Americans expect employers to hire a safe and responsible workforce, especially when workers are employed in areas that require the public's trust, such as when they enter private homes, transport children to school, or care for aging relatives. Later we will learn in disturbing detail why in certain occupations a background check of prospective employees is critical to public safety. Mrs. Bone, we are grateful you've joined us this morning to share your family's personal story. The death of your sister Sue could have been prevented. We cannot fathom the pain you and your family are forced to bear. There isn't a member in Congress who wouldn't be outraged if his or her loved one suffered the same fate as your sister. But because of EEOC overreach, there are now policies in place making it harder for employers to do what is right. Some employers will simply avoid the bureaucratic hassle of conducting background checks or the risk of being second-guessed by the federal government, which means more Americans might be put in harm's way. Adding insult to injury, EEOC denied the public an opportunity to comment on its radical change in policy. And we understand the commission is considering further guidance that would hinder employers' ability to look at the credit histories of prospective employees. It is time for EEOC to stop this nonsense, withdraw its flawed guidance, and ensure employers use the tools available to protect the men and women they serve. Unfortunately, misguided regulatory schemes weren't the only concerns raised at our last EEOC hearing. We also discussed the commission's failed approach to enforcement. Instead of commission members working together to resolve claims of discrimination raised by American workers, we have an unaccountable general counsel pursuing cases of systemic discrimination without any allegation of wrongdoing. The results have been disappointing to say the least. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently wrote, ``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.'' Another federal court described an EEOC case as a ``theory in search of facts to support it.'' Other courts have found EEOC legal complaints as frivolous, unreasonable, and untenable. Last year, we raised these and other concerns to Commission Chair Berrien and urged her to change course. Unfortunately, our concerns continue to be ignored. I am hopeful that through today's hearing and our oversight of EEOC, the commission will adopt a more responsible approach that better serves the needs of workers and employers. We are here today because we want to ensure these vital laws - and the protections they provide American workers - are properly enforced. Every American deserves a fair shot at finding a job - regardless of age, disability, sex, religion, or race. When they are denied that fair shot, workers rely upon EEOC to make it right and hold bad actors accountable. That is the mission of this important agency, and it's our responsibility to make sure EEOC is getting the job done. Again, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us and for contributing to this important effort. With that, I will now yield to the senior Democrat of the subcommittee, my colleague Representative Joe Courtney, for his opening remarks. ______ Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the committee. And, again, I want to begin by thanking the witnesses for being here this morning. Particularly, again, as the Chairman, Ms. Bone, for your amazing courage to take a horrible tragedy and really try and turn it into a positive outcome in terms of educating the public and, certainly, people who are close to the workplace. So thank you for being here today. I have to say, though, I am a little disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that, you know, in the name of oversight we are holding a hearing today, you know--and we heard sort of some of the opening flavor of this hearing, where the majority, for some reason, didn't feel that it was appropriate to invite the agency itself to come here and actually directly address the questions that are being raised this morning. It is true we had a hearing last year with the chairwoman who, again, had pretty much taken over just recently. If there are concerns that members want to raise I totally support the fact that we should have these types of questions exchanged. But the problem is, is if you don't have the agency here to answer them, then I really am very puzzled at why we think this is somehow going to benefit the process. We have about 50 days left in this Congress which, again, is going to go down in history as one of the least productive congresses ever. The Do Nothing Congress of Harry Truman passed over 400 pieces of legislation. We barely got over the 100 mark in terms of measures that are going to get passed. And, again, I have no problem with spending the time here this morning. But frankly, there are other issues which this subcommittee should be taking up that directly fall under our jurisdiction. Such as the fact that we have not raised the minimum wage since 2007. We have over 190 House members that have signed a discharge petition to just simply ask for a vote in the House. We have not even had a hearing on this issue in this subcommittee. So yes, let's hold this hearing today. Let's flush out all the issues. But let's talk about other issues that members-- your colleagues that are elected to represent their constituents--have been desperately pleading to have consideration. I see Ms. Olson here today from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A week ago last Friday I addressed the eastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce, which is an affiliate of the Chamber. We have large companies like General Dynamics and Pfizer, small startups that are part of it. The number one workforce issue that they asked me is why has the House not taken up the bipartisan immigration reform issue. Why are we still holding back the U.S. economy, which CBO has told us will grow if we pass the bipartisan Senate bill, cut the deficit, and solve tremendous workforce shortages in areas of hospitality, agriculture, in terms of some high-tech sectors of our economy; the pharmaceutical industry, which is, you know, very prevalent in the state of Connecticut. Again, 192 members of the House have signed a discharge petition to bring up that bill, and we have not even had a hearing on the House in the last year-and-a-half; not one on that issue. So yes, let's hold this hearing today. Let's talk about these issues. But the fact of the matter is, is this majority has cut off consideration of issues that directly affect working people in working families in terms of raising their wages for the first time in 7 years; helping employers deal with workforce shortages that the Immigration Reform Bill would directly address. And, again, the Chamber has been very strong in terms of saying that we should do this for the benefit of your members and for the country as a whole. And as long as we are talking about background checks, I come from Connecticut, okay? Which is where the Sandy Hook shooting took place a year ago last December. We have a background check system that law enforcement has told us is broken in terms of people getting access to firearms who do not--who should not get that access because they do have felony records, they do have mental illness, they have conditions which we should be strengthening and systems that we should be strengthening to make sure that yes, we should have customers safe but we also should have the public safe. We should have schoolchildren safe in this country. And, again, we have not had a single hearing in this Congress to deal with background checks for an issue which 80 percent of the public supports. So yes, let's have this hearing today and we will flush out these issues and talk about it. But, again, I would plead with the chairman that we should a) on this committee, take up issues that your colleagues have asked for consideration in terms of minimum wage. That your leadership should take up immigration reform now so that we can help grow this economy. And for the sake of all victims of violence in this country we should strengthen background checks for the purchase and acquisition and ownership of dangerous firearms. I yield back the balance of my time. [The statement of Mr. Courtney follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Courtney, Senior Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Walberg for calling today's hearing to examine the important work of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I also want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning to testify on civil rights and the efforts of the EEOC. As we go through the day's proceedings, I'd be remiss if I didn't note that we just celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ushered in an era of significant opportunity and change. The following year, 1965, the EEOC opened its doors, charged with the mission of ending employment discrimination through enforcement of the nation's equal employment opportunity laws. The work of the EEOC remains as critical today as it was five decades ago, particularly when we look to the challenges facing the unemployed in our nation. The economy has improved drastically since the depths of the recession. Last month, the overall unemployment rate stabilized at 6.3 percent. While this is still unacceptably high, the unemployment rate for minorities is even more appalling: 11.5 percent of African Americans and 7.7 percent of Hispanics in this country were out of work as of May. And we know, as labor economists and experts point to, discrimination remains one of factors for the disparity. For those who are skeptical about the mission of the EEOC, I would remind them that the EEOC's work is essential and responds to a serious problem in our country: workplace discrimination. Every worker in this country--whether a job applicant or employee-- has the right to be treated fairly in the workplace and judged solely upon his or her ability to do the job. The foundation of our civil rights laws is to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to participate in and contribute to society, while being able to provide for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, far too often workers are not hired, paid less or fired from their jobs because they are female, or pregnant, or African American, or have a disability. The EEOC plays a vital role in ensuring fairness and equal opportunity in the workplace. It enforces some of the country's most important federal laws, ones that prohibit discrimination against an employee or job applicant because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information. Despite these protections, nearly 93,000 new charges of discrimination were filed with the EEOC last year. Among those, the EEOC received: * over 67,000 Title VII charges, alleging some forms of discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. 3,146 of those charges alleged color-based discrimination; * over 300 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) charges; and * 1,019 Equal Pay Act charges; And to be clear, the EEOC works diligently to settle many of these cases before they reach litigation. As I understand, litigation is always viewed as a last resort and is brought in less than 1% of charges with merit. But litigation is sometimes necessary to ensuring compliance with our anti-discrimination laws, and to stopping and discouraging unlawful discriminatory practices. Congress also has a responsibility to ensure that American workers, should they become victims of workplace discrimination, have means of seeking justice. Here we are, six months away from the end of the 113th Congress, and we have yet to act on any meaningful update to our civil rights laws. The fact is that, despite the progress we have made in the last 50 years, there is still much left to be done. And I believe there are many issues where Democrats and Republicans can join together to strengthen our civil rights laws. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which I am proud to cosponsor, would prohibit discrimination in the workplace because of someone's sexual orientation or gender identity and enjoys support from both Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. I urge Chairman Walberg and Chairman Kline to work with Representatives Polis and Ros-Lehtinen, the bill's bipartisan sponsors, to bring this long overdue legislation back before the Committee for immediate consideration. In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act--which has been passed twice by this House on a bipartisan basis--should be brought up for immediate consideration so that gender-based pay discrimination is finally put on equal footing with other civil rights violations in the workplace. These efforts should be the topic of this hearing. We should be seeking opportunities to together to strengthen and update this nation's civil rights laws. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thanks again to our witnesses for your participation. ______ Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. And your points are duly noted. I would just add that this is a process. And as I said in my opening statements, we are still waiting for some of the action that we requested when we had the EEOC in front of us that still have not been dealt with. As far as a do-nothing Congress, I would hesitate to use that term when, in fact, in a bipartisan way this House has done an awful lot of work, hundreds of bills sent to the Senate, many of which are bipartisan in effort and in vote. So if we would amend that to be a bipartisan--or a do- nothing Senate, I would approve of it even more so. But that will be a debate for another day. Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. And now I have the privilege of introducing our panel that have taken their time and submitted to our request to come here. And we appreciate that. First, Ms. Camille Olson is a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, Illinois, my hometown, as we discussed earlier. She will be testifying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Welcome. Mr. Todd McCracken is the president of the National Small Business Association in Washington, D.C. Thanks for being here. Ms. Sherrilyn Ifill--did I get that right--Ifill is the president and director of the NAACP legal defense and educational fund in New York, New York. Welcome. And finally, Ms. Lucia Bone is the founder of the Sue Weaver C.A.U.S.E. in Flower Mound, Texas. Welcome. Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, most of you are aware that you will have a 5-minute time period to give your testimony. Your full testimony, written, is recorded and will be for our use. When you begin the light be at the green. When you see it turn yellow, that means you have approximately 1 minute left to conclude your comments. And I would ask you to try to keep within that 5-minute time period. The same will be for our committee, when we have the opportunity to question you. We will have 5 minutes, as well. So now let me recognize our first witness, Ms. Olson? Microphone, is that on? STATEMENT OF MS. CAMILLE OLSON, PARTNER, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Ms. Olson. Would you like me to start over? Thanks. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Courtney, and other committee members. I am testifying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation. I chair the chamber's Employment Opportunity Policy Subcommittee, and I am also a partner with the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw. The Chamber is a long-standing supporter of reasonable and necessary steps to achieve the goal of equal employment opportunity for all. However, the Chamber has serious concerns as to how federal nondiscrimination laws are currently being administered and enforced by the EEOC. Loosely defined and overly broad, grants of authority to agency officers have resulted in an EEOC that prioritizes expansive enforcement, aggressive litigation and punishment over education, cooperation, and conciliation. The EEOC is failing in its fundamental roles, failing to properly and timely investigate charges, failing to conciliate in good faith and failing to effectively litigate. As a consequence, the EEOC is failing in its core mission: to effectively enforce Title VII and other nondiscrimination laws. First, EEOC has not fulfilled its mandate to properly litigate and investigate charges. Investigation abuses include those experienced by Chamber members as well as those relied upon by courts to grant summary judgment in an employer's favor in multi-plaintiff litigation initiated by the EEOC. At EEOC meetings in 2012 and 2013, both plaintiff and management attorneys confronted EEOC commissioners with complaints that investigations were too long, inconsistent and of questionable quality. To date, the EEOC has failed to address those concerns by providing investigators with timeliness standards for a definition of a quality, limited investigation. Second, too often the EEOC has prioritized litigation over its statutory mandate to conciliate, refusing to engage in meaningful conciliation negotiations and exchanges of information during conciliation. EEOC now contends that conciliation obligations are exempt from judicial review. EEOC v. CRST is one stark example of the damage done by the EEOC's misplaced priorities. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an EEOC case involving over 150 women because the EEOC's failure to conciliate and its, quote, unquote-- ``stonewalling,'' sanctioning the EEOC $4.7 million. Third, numerous EEOC cases have been initiated without commission authorization. And many have been adjudged by federal district courts across the United States to be frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation. In the last two years alone, the EEOC has been ordered to pay employers over $5.6 million as a result of its litigation failures. A Michigan federal court described the EEOC's actions as, quote--``lacking foundation from the beginning.'' While a New York federal court criticized the EEOC for its, quote--``sue first, prove later approach.'' In EEOC litigation challenging an employer's use of background checks, Ohio and Maryland federal courts independently criticized the EEOC for using a, quote-- ``homemade method of proof that the EEOC itself prohibits,'' noting that the EEOC was suing employers for the same type of background checks that the EEOC itself uses. The Maryland court characterized the EEOC's analysis as containing a mind-boggling number of errors, laughable, skewed and an egregious example of scientific dishonesty. Of particular concern is the EEOC's extensive delegation of authority to the general counsel in bringing litigation. Given the significant expenditure of resources by all parties in systemic and multi-plaintiff cases, and in light of the EEOC's recent history of litigation failures, the Chamber urges that all multi-plaintiff litigation be submitted to the commissioners for approval prior to initiation. The EEOC does not report the results of one of its most important legal enforcement methods, the amicus curiae briefs it files in cases raising novel or important issues of law. In 2013, the EEOC's positions were rejected in eight of the 10 substantive positions it advanced through its amicus briefs. In four of these, the Supreme Court and courts of appeals also rejected relevant provisions in the EEOC's underlying enforcement guidance. In one case, the Supreme Court characterized the EEOC's underlying enforcement guidance as, quote--``a proposed standard of remarkable ambiguity,'' while in another the Supreme Court rejected EEOC's enforcement guidance, explaining it's positions were circular and unpersuasive. The EEOC's amicus litigation program was an overwhelming failure, leaving employers searching as to where to find accurate, reliable guidance on their obligations under federal nondiscrimination laws. I have submitted for the record written testimony, as well as the Chamber's recently published paper that details the EEOC's unreasonable enforcement efforts and misplaced priorities in all three phases of its statutory mandate. For these reasons, the Chamber calls for increased oversight by the commissioners and a refocusing of EEOC's priorities toward its fundamental statutory responsibilities. Thank you for the opportunity to share some of these concerns with you today. [The statement of Ms. Olson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.044 Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Mr. McCracken, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF MR. TODD MCCRACKEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. McCracken. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Todd McCracken. I am the president of the National Small Business Association. Thank you for inviting us here today to discuss some of the many federal enforcement issues that confront our nation's small business community. Today, I am going to focus my comments on criminal background screening in general, and recent initiatives in this area by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in particular. Employers want to provide a safe place for their employees to work and to do their best to prevent workplace crime. They want to ensure that the employees that they send to customers' homes as technicians, repair people, or salespeople do not inflict harm on their customers. They need to take steps to prevent theft, fraud, and embezzlement. Criminal background screening is an important tool--nearly the only tool for small companies--that employers have to protect their customers, their employees, and themselves from criminal behavior. For its part, the federal government--in this case, the EEOC--has an obligation to articulate rules that are comprehensible and can actually be implemented. It is fundamentally unfair and, in practice, counterproductive for the rules to be so opaque that few small business practitioners can understand them. Lack of crisp guidance leads to situations where enforcement is starkly arbitrary, and the rules, since they cannot be understood, are, effectively, ignored. Today, small companies live with the threat that they may be sued for negligent hiring if they hire an unsuitable employee who subsequently commits a crime or tortious act in the workplace or in a customer's home or workplace. The complicated, confusing guidance discourages small businesses from relying on checks and, in tandem with EEOC's stepped-up enforcement in this area, means that small businesses face greater legal exposure. Small businesses are caught between competing government priorities and perspectives among different federal agencies, the courts and state and federal governments. The 2012 EEOC guidance, for example, explicitly stated that the fact that a small business was complying with the state legal requirement to conduct a criminal background check or to bar a felon from a particular position would not prevent an EEOC enforcement action. With respect, it is ridiculous that a small business is forced to choose between two conflicting government requirements. If the EEOC has a problem with a state statute it should challenge the statute, not launch enforcement action against a business who complied with state law. Unlike the federal government, small businesses have limited resources and defending such lawsuits can devastate the financial health of the business. Neither the small business community nor the EEOC countenances discrimination. Small businesses are conducting background checks to help promote public safety, not for the purposes of excluding minority employees. They are trying to hire qualified employees. They are trying to prevent their employees, their customers and, in the case of family-owned businesses, their own families from becoming victims of crime. They are trying to avoid liability for crimes committed by employees, and they are trying to limit theft, fraud, embezzlement, and other property crimes. The vast majority of small firms are also trying to comply with the law and with EEOC guidance. In the current situation, they are unable to do so with any degree of confidence. I can assure that it is a rare small business owner who is going to be able to read, absorb and apply the 55-page, 167-footnote enforcement guidance on a consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decision that are in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, issued by the EEOC on April 25, 2012. More importantly, we have had discussions with sophisticated attorneys who grapple with these issues for a living, including those who work for large law firms advising large corporations. They struggle with how to advise their clients, as well. If they are at a loss, then small firms and their generalist attorneys will fare no better. Workplace violence is a significant problem. Workplace theft and embezzlement are also major problems. Both can be reduced through proper background screening. According to the Bureau's justice statistics, approximately 572,000 non-fatal violent crimes occurred against persons age 16 or older while they were at work in 2009. Workplace violence accounted for 15 percent of non-fatal violent crime against persons age 16 or older. In short, workplace violence remains a very serious problem, even though it has declined over the last 15 years. I would also like to make the point that it is not fundamentally in an employer's interest to fail to hire an otherwise qualified applicant because of a long-past minor infraction. It is not in their interest, for example, to fail to hire someone who got into an altercation years ago and has otherwise had no problems with the law and has a good employment record. Since employers have every interest in keeping their pool of potential job candidates as large as possible, it does not take a major enforcement effort to achieve these results. We must find a way to provide clear guidance to small companies so that they can protect their employees, their customers and their workplaces without unduly burdening them. Thank you for inviting us to testify today, and we look forward to continuing to work to address these important issues. [The statement of Mr. McCracken follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.050 Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Ms. Ifill, you are recognized for your 5 minutes. Thank you. STATEMENT OF MS. SHERRILYN IFILL, PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR- COUNSEL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, NEW YORK, NEW YORK Ms. Ifill. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Courtney, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Next month, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without question, that legislation is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation ever enacted by the United States Congress to ensure that our country keeps its promise of equality and justice. It is perhaps best known for Title VII, which outlawed discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The creation of the EEOC as the agency charged with receiving, investigating and referring complaints of employment discrimination for litigation was a core aspect of the bipartisan compromise that resulted in Title VII. Since the enactment of Title VII, the Legal Defense Fund has worked to enforce this landmark statute, challenging discriminatory practices of both private and public employers, and serving on the front lines of many great civil rights battles seeking equal opportunity in employment for all. From this vantage point, the Legal Defense Fund has had the unique opportunity to observe the work of the EEOC and to assess its effectiveness. There is no question that the EEOC has been incredibly successful in redressing various forms of employment discrimination. The commission has been a driving force in dismantling segregated workplaces, removing unnecessary and discriminatory employment barriers and obstacles, and ensuring that the promise of equality at work could be realized for millions of Americans. Despite the tremendous progress we have made in ensuring equal opportunity in the workplace, sadly our work in eliminating discrimination is far from over. And the EEOC plays a critical role in the ongoing work of eradicating employment discrimination. One need only look to recent EEOC court victories to understand that even the most pernicious forms of racism on the job unfortunately still exist. In 2012, a Texas jury awarded punitive damages to three African-American manufacturing employees subjected to racially offensive slurs and a noose in the workplace, including the use of the N word by a top plant official who responded to complaints about the noose with the comment, ``You people are too sensitive.'' Last year, a North Carolina jury unanimously found that African-American truck drivers who were called the N word, monkey and boy, and threatened with nooses by a manager and coworker, were harassed and retaliated against because of their race. And earlier this year, the EEOC secured relief for an African-American technician in Arkansas who was subjected to racially offensive language and visited at home, in it middle of the night, by two white coworkers threatening to kill him if he complained about further racial harassment. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the EEOC received nearly 94,000 charges of discrimination. Of those charges, 33,068 involved allegations of racial discrimination. Over 27,000 involved allegations of sex discrimination, over 25,000 of disability status. And over 21,000 involved allegations of age discrimination. And we know that the number of filed charges does not come close to fully representing the millions of Americans who still endure unlawful discrimination and mistreatment in the workplace. The recent downturn in the economy has only served as another painful reminder of the continued existence of employment discrimination in the workplace. While nationwide the unemployment rate is around 6 percent, for Latino Americans the rate is 8 percent and for African- Americans, 12.2 percent. Given the scope of the problem, we commend the EEOC's decision to continue to prioritize the initiative revitalized under President George W. Bush's administration of focusing the commission's resources on redressing systemic discrimination. We also applaud the EEOC's recent actions around the misuse of criminal background checks in employment. We believe it highlights the ways in which the commission is working to address and remedy discriminatory barriers that have disparate impacts on protected classes. It is important to remember that the EEOC guidelines do not prohibit or discourage the use of background checks. Instead, they provide guidance to employers. All of us stand united in our commitment to a safe work environment. We stand in sympathy with the family of Susan Weaver, whose tragic death resulted from the failure to properly use criminal background checks. The EEOC's guidance is designed to help employers in the proper use of this important information, and to explain to employers how they can use this and keep their workplace safe. The guidance is not only commendable, it is consistent with the growing national and bipartisan consensus that we need to rethink our criminal reentry systems in order to ensure that millions of Americans who have a criminal record, but who have paid their debt to society and do not pose a danger and are qualified for work, are not unjustly denied the opportunity to reintegrate back into society. The eve of the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a timely opportunity to pause and consider the work of the EEOC. That work is far from over. As Naomi Earp, who served as the chair under President George W. Bush remarked, ``new times demand new strategies to stay ahead of the curve; these old evils are still around in new forms, and the commission intends to act vigorously to eradicate them.'' We agree with that statement. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be happy to answer your questions. [The statement of Ms. Ifill follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.059 Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Ms. Ifill. Ms. Bone, you are now recognized. STATEMENT OF MS. LUCIA BONE, FOUNDER, THE SUE WEAVER C.A.U.S.E., FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS Ms. Bone. Good morning, Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Courtney and other members of the subcommittee. It is a great privilege for me to appear before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections in honor and in memory of my sister, Sue Weaver, and for the other victims whose tragic deaths could have been prevented had an employer done a proper criminal background check before hiring those individuals. My name is Lucia Bone, and I am the founder of the Sue Weaver C.A.U.S.E., Consumer Awareness of Unsafe Service Employment. In 2004, we were founded, and C.A.U.S.E. is a non- profit organization proactively keeping you and your families safe by promoting the importance of proper annual criminal background checks on anyone hired to work in our homes or with vulnerable populations. C.A.U.S.E. does not actually conduct criminal background checks. We are an honorary member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners. At one time or another, we all need to invite strangers into our home for maintenance or delivery. Most of us trust the companies that we hire to send safe workers into our home. But how do we know if that trust is well-placed? My sister, Sue Weaver, thought it was. She was wrong. My sister hired a reputable Florida department store to have her air ducts cleaned. No criminal background checks were done on the workers they sent into customers' homes. The work was subcontracted out, and two convicted felons were sent into Sue's home to do the service work: a single woman, home alone, two convicted felons. Six months later, one of the workers returned. He was a twice-convicted sex offender on parole. He raped Sue, he murdered her, he set her body and her home on fire in an effort to destroy the DNA evidence. Had a criminal background check been done, the employer would have known that these men were not suitable to be working in customers' homes due to their criminal history, and my sister might still be alive today. Since Sue's death in 2001, I have campaigned tirelessly to educate and bring awareness to the importance of proper background investigations and the importance of knowing whom you hire. Not only do background checks make good business sense, they save lives. It is absurd that a person with multiple convictions for violent sexual assault should be engaged as a home repairman, yet it happens over and over again. Everyone has the right to work, but not every job is right for everyone. Criminal background investigations provide employers an invaluable tool to help them place employees in job-appropriate positions, better protecting coworkers and customers. Background checks prevent tragedies. In the last decade, we have witnessed a dramatic upsurge in laws mandating background checks in many areas, often to better screen those working with children or vulnerable populations. Unfortunately, we must ask ourselves if the EEOC's focus isn't on helping ex-offenders seeking employment without regard to consumer safety. Everyone deserves a second chance, but not at the expense of innocents such as my sister. Employers need to know who they are hiring, and background checks are an appropriate risk-mitigation tool that helps them do so. I am gravely disappointed that no victims were represented at the July 2011 meeting of the EEOC that preceded the issuance of the guidance. The Commission did not consider the victims' side, but solely focused their attention on the plight of the ex-offenders. Background checks were singled out as the leading cause of why minority ex-offenders fail to find jobs. They ignored other challenges, such as drug and alcohol addictions, lack of education or vocational training and lack of family structure, and ignored the consumer safety and risk mitigation benefits of background screening. I am not an expert in the workings of Congress and regulatory agencies, but common sense leads me to believe that the EEOC needs to suspend implementation of its guidance and hold the type of transparent, inclusive proceeding that it should have conducted in the first place. This time, they need to listen to victims and their families, and victims' rights organizations, and those representing the vulnerable populations. All views need to be heard and considered before a new policy goes into effect. When weighing the risks and benefits of the proposed policy guidance, they must balance the safety of the public and the innocent consumers against the employment concerns of ex- offenders. While, sadly, it is too late for my sister, it is not too late for all the others who might become victims. By discouraging background checks used to qualify individuals that work near our families, we are knowingly risking the safety of ourselves and our loved ones. Under the guidance, it is more difficult for employers to make informed hiring decisions, placing employees and consumers in unsuitable situations and jeopardizing the safety of our families, our homes and our workplace. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Bone follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.064 Chairman Walberg. I thank you for your testimony. I thank each of you for the testimony. And now I recognize, to open our questioning, the Chairman of our full Committee, Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline. Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank the witnesses for being here today. Really expert testimony from all of you. I want to--I think we could all agree, in fact I am sure of it, on both sides of the aisle, that it is important, when we look at nondiscrimination issues and Title VII, that we do so mindful of what it was supposed to do. What I see here, listening to Mr. McCracken's testimony, is a situation where we are making things more and more complicated and, therefore, harder to actually comply with the intent of the law. So in looking at the criminal background checks guidance--I think, Mr. McCracken, you indicate it is 55 pages long, and my notes say 157 footnotes, I think you said 167--that is a lot, in a time when we see uncertainty and a blizzard of rulemaking descending on businesses, large and small. We have small businesses--for example, trying to figure out whether they have got 50 employees or 49 employees, or whether they are working 30 hours or 29 or 39 hours a week--how are they gonna comply with the Affordable Care Act? And now they have got guidance from the EEOC that is 55 pages long and has 157 footnotes. It seems to me that would be pretty difficult to comply with if you are a small business owner. Would it not, Mr. McCracken? Mr. McCracken. I would say yes, because the companies that I am most--we are most concerned about are those, as you suggest, 50 or so and less, where they don't have a dedicated HR person on staff. A lot of these issues are handled directly by the small business owner him-or herself. And we also have to realize that it is particularly in smaller workplaces employees often handle a wide variety of tasks, and jobs can change rather quickly. And so doing the individualized assessments is even more complex and difficult in a small business setting than it is in a large employer setting. And coupled with that, they have far less available expertise with which to accomplish that. Mr. Kline. Right. So they are going to have difficulty complying with this if they don't have the resources to hire an attorney. Is there any safe harbor in here? Mr. McCracken. Not that I am aware of, no. Mr. Kline. I mean, I suppose they could just not do background checks. But then they would be in violation of other statute. So under that circumstance, it seems to me that this would add to uncertainty on the part of employers and would make it less likely that they would make new hires. And at a time when we are looking at a workforce participation rate that is as low as we have seen in decades, another factor making it more difficult for employers to make decisions to hire is exactly the wrong thing that we need right now. But it looks to me as though this guidance is going to do just that. And so whether you are a potential new hire that is a minority or not a minority, protected class or not, less likely to have an opportunity to be hired under this guidance. Is that the way I--that is the way I understand your testimony. I am just trying to-- Mr. McCracken. I think that is a good analysis. Another point that I would bring up that hasn't been specifically mentioned is, it also creates incentives for companies of all sizes to subcontract out many of these functions so they don't do the hiring themselves. And to the extent those companies, or small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, these laws don't apply. So there is a significant--the more complex you make these things, the more difficult they are for employers of all sizes, the more the very underpinnings of the goals of the rules are undercutting themselves. Mr. Kline. So it has the perverse effect of actually putting up employment barriers, which we were trying in the first place to eliminate employer barriers, employment barriers, barriers to employment by the original act. All right, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Courtney. Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, unfortunately because the agency was not invited today so that we could actually have a real dialogue and, you know, I actually think that would be a way to sort of shed light in terms of trying to get to real oversight, you know, we are going to have to sort of rely on sort of indirect, third-party contributions to sort of, at least partially, recreate some balance in the record here. And so, Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to enter into the record a statement by David Lopez, who is general counsel for the EEOC, who makes a few points, which he did just recently again, in response to some of the claims that we have heard here this morning. Number one, he sets the record straight in terms of the percentage of litigation that actually has materialized in 2013. And, again, Ms. Ifill sort of alluded to that in terms of some of the statistics that she cited. But it is about 0.5 percent, less than a percent, of cases that actually went to litigation. In addition, he cited some other court rulings, Mach Mining and others, who were at odds with the case that was cited earlier here. Again, there is clearly a conflict between the two circuits about the--you know, the handling of the conciliation process by the agency, which is a good thing. Again, I practiced law for 27 years, and understood well that, you know, judges, like everybody else, can sometimes disagree in terms of interpreting statutes. And, again, I think, you know, having that discussion here today is fine. Again, it is too bad that the party to the litigation is not present in terms of being able to just, you know, articulate their point of view on this. But again, we were deprived of that by the way in which this hearing was organized. So, again, I would like to have Mr. Lopez's statement entered into the record. Which, again, I think sheds some facts for the record in response to some of the claims that were being made here. [The information follows:] [Additional Submissions by Mr. Courtney follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.208 Chairman Walberg. Without objection, the item will be entered. Mr. Courtney. In addition, I would like to enter the Wall Street Journal article of February 9. The title is ``EEOC Sues Less, but Tactics Draw Flack.'' Again, which shows kind of the discussion here today. Which is that, clearly, the numbers show that, you know, the notion that there is like this avalanche of litigation out there in fact just is not sustained by a true analysis of 2013 data. But there is--the tactics are being criticized, and that is certainly what is happening here today. But again, I think this article shows some balance which, again, the fact that we don't have the agency, the party defendant to some of the claims that are being made present here today, unfortunately we have to rely on a third party. So again, I would ask that the Wall Street Journal article-- [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.074 Chairman Walberg. Without objection-- Mr. Courtney.--the record. Chairman Walberg.--it will be entered. Mr. Courtney. Now, Ms. Ifill, you described, again, the fact that prejudice and discrimination still exists in this country, sadly. And, frankly, we have had some sad examples of that in the media, with Mr. Sterling out in California, the Nevada rancher. But again, there, in fact, are many, many instances where EEOC's role, even 50 years later, is still, you know, very important to the great strength of this country, which is the diversity of its population. But one thing I also think is important to note is that, you know, this agency is not growing like Topsy. In terms of the staffing of the agency, it is actually smaller than it-- today than it was even in a short time ago. And I was wondering if, again, you could sort of confirm that in terms of your experience with the department. Ms. Ifill. Yes, indeed, that is correct. And as I alluded to in my testimony, the complaints that are being received by the EEOC remain still, sadly, at a very high level. And so the agency is really charged with figuring out how to address the thousands of complaints that they receive with, in fact, a very limited staff. You know that the statute requires the EEOC to engage in conciliation first, which they do. And you also probably know that, certainly, the figures that we have been able to identify demonstrate that the vast majority of cases in which the EEOC participates are resolved through conciliation or through settlement, and a very small fraction actually involve cases that go to trial or are litigated. And so the EEOC, at least from our view, is doing precisely what the statute required it to do. Which is to, the first line of attack, attempt to resolve problems of discrimination in the workplace without litigation. With regard to that litigation record, well, I am a little cautious about cherry-picking through a record to determine whether, in fact, the EEOC is unsuccessful, as has been suggested by some of the testimony here. In fact, if you look at the last year and the cases that have gone to trial, the EEOC has won nine of 10 jury trials. I can tell you, as the leader of a civil rights organization, it is not an easy thing to win a jury trial in an employment discrimination case. But the EEOC has won nine of the 10 of them. If I might, I wanted to say something about just the comment that was made earlier about background checks. Am I out of time? Chairman Walberg. Let's reserve. The time is up. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. Going back to the issue, Mr. McCracken, of a safe harbor. EEOC's enforcement guidance says that if a state law requiring a criminal background check is inconsistent with the guidance, complying with the state law will not shield an employer from Title VII liability. Nor will complying with the guidance necessarily protect an employer from tort liability for negligently hiring a person who goes on to commit a crime against the customer, as in the case of Ms. Weaver. In your opinion, what would be an appropriate safe harbor in relationship to these guidances? Mr. McCracken. Well, we certainly think that it would be appropriate when there is a direct conflict between different levels of government in terms of a requirement on a company that there be a safe harbor until those various levels of government can work out their dispute. But it--we don't think it should be worked out by putting, essentially, small companies in a vise and hearing different things from different parts of the government. So I--we think that it would be appropriate for the EEOC to create an exception or a carve-out in that particular circumstance. And then proceed to work out the disagreement with the state or the city or whomever else has that requirement. Chairman Walberg. Okay. But there isn't that possibility now, as you under-- Mr. McCracken. That is not my understanding. Chairman Walberg. There is no flexibility there. Ms. Olson, you are shaking your head. Ms. Olson. That is correct. The EEOC has made that very clear. In fact, there is a lawsuit that has been brought by the state of Texas in connection with that specific issue. And the EEOC's response to the state of Texas' concern regarding conflicts between state law and the EEOC guidance has been you can't sue based on the guidance; it doesn't have the force of law. Leaving employers in a quandary of being potentially subject to significant litigation, as we have discussed today, where the EEOC is actually pushing enforcement of the theories and the guidance and yet, at the same time, potentially being subject to state litigation and litigation by private parties if it doesn't do the background checking that is required under state law. Chairman Walberg. So the costliness of that to the employer encourages them to just back away. Ms. Olson. Right. Chairman Walberg. Let me go on, Ms. Olson. Beginning in 1996, the EEOC delegated litigation authority decisions to its office of general counsel. We expressed concern and questions about that when we had the EEOC in front of us last year. In 2012, EEOC reinforced a delegation of litigation decisions to the general counsel, with three exceptions. These three exceptions are not always clear, and still allow the general counsel considerable discretion as to which cases to bring before the commission for a vote. Do you believe this delegation of litigation authority affords the general counsel too much discretion, and why? Ms. Olson. I do believe it does. The extent of delegation to the general counsel, and then the further delegation by the general counsel to the district offices, represents a retreat from the responsibilities that both the commissioners, as well as the general counsel were confirmed to carry out. In this context, there is no question that litigation is policy. The policy of the EEOC is more often than not established by the cases it brings. We have heard, today, testimony universally from witnesses that litigation is important; an important policy issue, as well as an important enforcement issue, for the EEOC. These are the decisions that are properly within the purview of the confirmed commissioners, not bureaucrats that are spread throughout 15 different offices. And if you look at the history of the EEOC during the years 2000 to 2005, EEOC commissioners confirmed, or initiated and authorized, litigation in approximately 75 to 80 cases per year. If you look back to the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 the record makes clear they have--in those three years combined only authorized litigation in 15 cases. Chairman Walberg. So hence, possibly, the Wall Street Journal article, which gives a, I would say, clear misrepresentation of the purpose of the EEOC and how it is being carried out, and doesn't note that it has become more bureaucratic with the office of general counsel doing the litigation. Am I correct? Ms. Olson. Another great example are the two recent cases that were brought by the EEOC with respect to criminal background checks: the BMW case and the Dollar General case. In both those cases, those employers are being sued on an alleged theory that there is a disparate impact because the employers did not do individualized assessments and are being criticized for not having done individualized assessments in those cases. And yet Commissioner Berrien, on behalf of the EEOC, has said individualized assessments are not required. A complete disconnect between policy and litigation. Chairman Walberg. Okay, thank you. My time has expired. I recognize Mr. Takano for your 5 minutes. Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Ifill, would you like to--I would like to give you some time to comment on the background check response. Ms. Ifill. Thank you, very much. I wanted to respond because I want to make clear that neither criminal background checks nor guidance or standards that relate to how to properly use criminal background checks are entirely new. The guidance that was developed and promulgated by the EEOC actually is based on law that comes out of federal courts dating back to 1975. The guidance that the EEOC offers as it relates to criminal records and criminal background checks, as I said earlier, neither discourages or suggests that background checks of this sort should not be used. Instead, what it does is it provides precisely what the word says, ``guidance'' to assist, support and help employers figure out how to properly use that information. It draws a distinction between, for example, records of arrest and records of conviction. It suggests that when there is a conviction on the record the employer should engage in what is being called an ``individualized assessment,'' which sounds incredibly onerous but, in fact, actually consists of three common sense factors. That finding a conviction on record, the employer should ask three questions. One, what was the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct for which the conviction was received. Two, what is the amount of time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence. And three, what is the nature of the job held or sought. In the circumstance we heard described earlier with the tragic death of Susan Weaver, for example, knowing that the job requires people to enter a home would be a relevant factor. The fact that there was a conviction on the record for a violent crime would be a relevant factor. The time distance between the crime and the employment would be a relevant factor. Earlier, Mr. McCracken suggested that it is not logical for employers to exclude employees based on these records if, in fact, the crime is not relevant. But it does happen. We represent a woman named Barbara Harrison. Right now in Texas, a 58-year-old grandmother who applied to be a school crossing guard, when her background check was done, a charge came up from 40 years earlier of a fight she had with another girl when she was 18 years old. And despite the fact that Ms. Harrison has worked for the city of Dallas for 28 years, the job offer that had been extended to her to serve as a school crossing guard was withdrawn. And the guidance is meant to help employers make distinctions between those kinds of situations and the situations that appropriately require the exclusion of a potential employee. Mr. Takano. Thank you, Ms. Ifill. The example just brought up sort of resonates with some of the findings I have had traveling through my district, speaking to both employers and frustrated prospective employees. That sort of disparity between--I mean, that is also a common sense instance. I mean, Ms. Bone, you talk about representing common sense, and I recognize the common sense that your represent. But I think we could agree that a situation of a 40-year-old offense, I mean, much time has passed. I mean, these are reasonable guidelines and standards. Are we--you know, Ms. Ifill, I have become aware that many states, at least 12 states, have adopted much of--in their laws governing this topic of background checks, the guidelines of the EEOC. And so the conflict between states and federal government that Mr. McCracken talks about is the trend seems to be moving toward adopting what you have just, let's say, are common sense guidelines. Can you comment on that? Ms. Ifill. Twelve states and 60 jurisdictions have adopted ban the box rules, the idea being to move the issue of background checks further in the process of employment. We all know that this country is hurting. That workers, potential workers, are hurting. And the effort here is to ensure that those who deserve a fair chance at a job have an opportunity to get that job without being excluded based on records that are irrelevant to the job, charges that are too old and that do not pose or demonstrate that the employee poses a danger. And so many states have recognized this. And increasingly, businesses are recognizing this as well. Target, as you may know, has decided to ban the box. That is, the box that asks about criminal records early in the application process, and instead moves it to later where the employer has an opportunity to engage in the kind of assessment that the EEOC guidelines suggest. Mr. Takano. Thank you. I believe my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I recognize now the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson. Thank you, sir. And I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. This is a very illustrative debate on this issue. And particularly, Ms. Bone, I appreciate you and want--I was moved by your testimony, and I want to offer my condolences on behalf of your sister. And thank you for the work you are doing. I think it is important. My question to you today, some have argued that the EEOC in its guidance gave short shrift to the reasons behind why background checks are necessary for informing hiring decisions. And also their importance in public safety--this--and, you know, do you--I guess my question to you is, do you think the EEOC failed to strike a balance between its aims to help protect, you know, ex-offenders, but also is striking that balance on behalf of public safety? And what recommendations would you make in terms of trying to find a better balance? Ms. Bone. I do believe that they did not listen to the victims' side on several occasions. Not only did I write to the EEOC sharing Sue's story, but I was at the hearing. There was absolutely no representation at all from any of the victims' sides. I think they took the rights of the perpetrators way over the rights of the victims. And although I did say in my testimony that I do believe that everyone does have the right to work and there is a job for everyone, I do not think that the perpetrators' rights should go before the victims' rights. I would very much like to see them suspend this guidance and have an open hearing that weighs both sides and that all parties are well-represented. And that they need to stop demonizing background checks and strike a balance so that it is fair to all parties. Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that, and I think that is a good recommendation. You know, I am just struck--I am just trying to grapple with why the guidance is devoid of any real discussion of the importance of background checks. Particularly when the EEOC, other government agencies, rely on background checks in their hiring, and a lot of our local and state counterparts. So I agree with you, and appreciate your assessment on that. I would now like to jump over to Ms. Olson, if you don't mind. You mentioned in your testimony a couple court cases. One where EEOC had to pay $4.7 million in attorneys' fees, another $752,000 in attorneys' fees. Is it of concern that courts have repeatedly found these claims frivolous? Should taxpayers be concerned, and I guess my ultimate question here, do these court orders indicate EEOC legal theories and systemic cases are off the mark? Ms. Olson. It does. It indicates that the theories that are being brought are not well grounded in either the facts or in the law. There is no question about it. You have got to remember, it is very rare for a court to actually sanction a litigant that loses a case. So the fact that you see millions of dollars here--and the opportunity costs in terms of these are generally big systemic or multi-plaintiff cases that are being brought on dubious legal theories, attempting to stretch the contours of the--or the statutes that the EEOC is administering. As opposed to the type of cases that Ms. Ifill is describing, where there are individuals who have charges that are pending for multiple years that haven't been investigated and haven't been included. Charges where there may be discrimination, those individual cases that aren't being pursued. Imagine how many individual cases could be litigated by the EEOC for the $5 million to $6 million that the EEOC has had to pay over to employers. And this really doesn't account for the cases that the EEOC has lost, that the courts did not apply sanctions in terms of a repaying of the employers' attorneys' fees and cost. Mr. Hudson. Appreciate that. It seems in these cases--many of these cases brought by EEOC under disparate impact theory, in which a facially neutral policies challenges have a disproportionate impact on a protected class of applicants or employees, and is not of business necessity. Is there a common theme to these losses? Do these losses--these cases indicate that EEOC needs to reassess the kinds of disparate impact cases it brings? Ms. Olson. Yes. The common theme, if you look at--and there have only been three cases brought by the EEOC that have been decided with respect to background checks: Peoplemark, Kaplan and Freeman. The EEOC--this is not cherrypicking--has lost all three cases. And why? Because the cases were not well grounded in facts, yet alone the law. If you look at the additional testimony that is being submitted by the EEOC general counsel, he describes the fact that, in fact, the legal theories were not even tested. Those courts found that the EEOC was not even able to state a prima facie case of discrimination. That is the law and that is the facts, and the EEOC is failing on both. Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired. Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the witnesses for being here today. And, again, this is just part of the process. But these are questions that are important for the lifeblood of our country, not simply its economy, not simply its business opportunities, but for individuals themselves. And we need information that we can work from. So thank you for being here. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Courtney, for any closing remarks that he might have. Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And at the outset, I wanted to make sure, let it be noted, that Chairman Walberg actually gave some mild criticism to the Wall Street Journal, which is quite a--and the roof didn't fall in. So, you know, it was quite a moment to witness. And, again, I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony here today. And again, I think, you know, there are some--as I said at the outset, I mean, I think there are some important questions that we discussed here. Some of which, again, is reflected in divided opinions of the circuit courts. And that, you know, is kind of interesting to hear about. And again, this question of whether or not the--this new program and guidance is being, you know, appropriately implemented. Again, I think is something that is of great public interest. And Ms. Bone, your testimony today I think really helped us frame this the right way. What I--again, am still mystified is that why, you know, if we are trying to learn about what is going on in the courts or how this guidance is being implemented, why the agency is not participating in this hearing is still something that puzzles me. If they had been here, as I said, we would have at least had some, I think helpful debate about their track record in terms of litigation and the process that they use to authorize it. I think the statement we have submitted is an attempt to at least partially address that point. I think we also would have heard about some of the outreach that is going on with business in terms of the implementation of the guidance. Again, there have been, I think, a bona fide effort to do frequently asked questions. Much more intelligible than the regs that were issued. And I completely agree that sometimes the stuff that comes out of the Federal Register for the average business who is just trying to, you know, make a living and sell their product or their service, you know, that is very difficult. But again, the agency actually has tried to translate that into the English language, and actually have held outreach sessions. And I think there is some indication, in terms of what the agency has been able to tabulate, that there actually has been some take-up in a positive way. But again, the--a record has been made here today. And the EEOC staff is in the room. And I am sure they are making good notes. And hopefully, we will have an opportunity to get, you know, some more feedback from the department in terms of steps they are taking to make sure that, you know, these--this program is being implemented in a thoughtful, common-sense, balanced way. And Mr. Lopez, in this comments that I submitted for the record, made it clear that, yes, when a court rules against you and imposes penalties, that is not--that is something they are paying attention to. That is the whole intent of it in terms of when courts do that. However, you can't deny what Ms. Ifill said--that--when your batting average is nine out of 10 for jury trials, there aren't many trial lawyers that can really claim that kind of success rate. And so, again, it is a gray area in many of these questions that are here today. And it was somewhat helpful to get the-- you know, very helpful in terms of what the witnesses testified. But again, I don't think it had the right balance, to be perfectly honest. And I think that is unfortunate. But again, hopefully, you know, the subcommittee will use this information in a positive way so that I think we get to the place where everybody wants to be. Again, the witnesses have said they agree with the mission of the agency, which is to eradicate discrimination in this country once and for all. And also to protect people. But we also--it is a balancing act. And that is really the never-ending struggle that we have to go through. But I do think if there was enough overlap, if you really read everybody's testimony closely, to see that, you know, there really is more common ground than, I think, division that is here in this room. And, hopefully, in that spirit we can, again, get to the place that we all want to be. Which is a society free of discrimination, but that also provides for the public safety of its citizens. And with that, I yield back. Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. And I would concur that I think there is plenty of agreement in this room. It is the process by which we set priorities that move forward. And that is the issue. Priorities that go as far as just simple misunderstanding, confusion, or disagreement to priorities that deal specifically with life and death itself. And that is, of course, our purpose in doing oversight in this Subcommittee. It will never be perfect, as long as humans are involved with all the processes. But we want to move forward. Certainly every American deserves a fair shot at finding a job, every American. Every American, regardless of age, disability, sex, religion or race--every American deserves a fair shot at finding a job. And that should be the preeminent responsibility of the EEOC. But there are concerns. When we read--let me just read them again. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently wrote, as I said in my opening statement and I quoted--``EEOC brought this case on the basis of homemade methodology, crafted by witnesses''--these are strong words--``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.'' Another case stated that the EEOC case was a theory in search of facts to support it. Doing their basic job is--I don't think there is much disagreement here. But when we see them fishing for opportunities to make a case, that is a concern to us. Humanity and its amazing diversity offers challenges that seem to mandate the acquiring of good counsel. So to hear, subsequent to our hearings when we had Ms. Berrien in the room by herself to testify, and subsequently under our questioning and requests--to see those really not dealt with in that ensuing time to the present is a concern. To hear that the public, and specifically victims and their families and those with concern, were not brought into the room to give valid testimony, to give valid counsel, to give valid direction on what is necessary to make this EEOC work well for employer and employee alike, that is a concern. And to have guidance that is confusing and out of the realm of reality and what people deal with on both sides of the ledger in the real world is a concern to us. And so this will continue to be a process. This is just the second. And it does give us an indication of what could be done if we make this a priority. To do the oversight that is necessary, but to do it in a helpful, positive, constructive way to move ourselves forward. I would also make mention, as my good friend and colleague brought up the third or fourth time, as well, that we should have had Ms. Berrien in the room again, or EEOC represented again. Well, there was the opportunity for the minority to request her to testify here. This, again, in our mind was an opportunity to talk to the assertions that she had made earlier. And I hope that this panel has given that opportunity, and we will see, as we move forward, how the EEOC addresses our concerns and addresses the concerns expressed in this Subcommittee hearing today. Having said that, there being no further business for this Subcommittee the Committee stands adjourned. [Additional Submissions by Mr. Courtney follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.070 [Additional Submissions by Olson follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.228 [Additional Submissions by Mr. Walberg follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8194.243 ------ [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]