Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace discrimination.[3]: 12, 21  The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, pregnancy, and gender identity), age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for participating in a discrimination complaint proceeding and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.[4]

"EEOC" redirects here. For the EU legal certificate, see European Enforcement Order Certificate.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Agency overview
FormedJuly 2, 1965 (1965-07-02)
JurisdictionUnited States
Headquarters131 M Street, NE Washington, DC 20507
Employees2,068 (FY21)[1]
Annual budget$379,500,000 (FY18)[2]
Agency executives
Parent departmentIndependent Agency
WebsiteEEOC Official Website

The commission also mediates and settles thousands of discrimination complaints each year prior to their investigation. The EEOC is also empowered to file civil discrimination suits against employers on behalf of alleged victims and to adjudicate claims of discrimination brought against federal agencies.[5][6] Since 2021, the chair of the EEOC is Charlotte Burrows.

Process and enforcement

Authority

The EEOC has the authority to investigate and prosecute cases against most organizations, including labor unions and employment agencies, employing 15 workers or more, or, in the case of age discrimination, 20 or more workers. The commissioner of the EEOC can issue charges without a complainant, referred to as a "commissioner's charge."[7] Discrimination complaints can be based on hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and/or benefits,[8] and responsibility covers:[9]

Process

The EEOC investigation is confidential until the charge is filed, when the EEOC has 10 days to notify the employer of the charge.[10] Charges may be filed on behalf of someone else to maintain some anonymity, for example, a parent may file a charge on behalf of a minor child.[11]

Alternative dispute resolution

Because all federal agencies are required to offer an alternative dispute resolution,[12] the EEOC offers mediation with external or internal professional mediators as a voluntary alternative to litigation, which typically results in faster resolutions.[13] In the 2020 fiscal year (FY), the EEOC reported more than 6,000 mediations conducted recovering nearly half of the $333.2 million in relief from mediation, conciliation, and settlement.[14] Mediation is offered, or can be requested, prior to investigation, or after a finding of discrimination has been issued, during conciliation. If the EEOC does not find merit in the charge, they will not offer, nor allow for a request, for mediation.[15] The average mediation with the EEOC takes 3 months.[13]

Respondent's position statement and investigation

Employers have 30 days from receipt of a charge to respond to allegations prior to any investigation or mediation offering, or if voluntary mediation was utilized, but unsuccessful. Charging parties have 20 days to respond to the respondent's position statement.[10][16] The EEOC may ask the employer for additional information such as witness interviews, an on-site interview, or personnel files and policies. An investigator will determine whether or not there is reasonable cause to determine whether or not discrimination has occurred.[17] In FY 2020, the EEOC found 17.4% of charged cases to have merit.[14] The EEOC says investigations typically take 10 months or longer.[10]

Right to Sue

A Right to Sue gives claimants the right to file a lawsuit in federal court. Right to Sue notices are granted when the agency does not pursue litigation, because the claimant requests the notice after 180 days have elapsed into an investigation; the EEOC finds merit following an investigation, but declines to prosecute; or the agency is unable to determine if there is reasonable cause that the law may have been violated.[10]

Charges filed under the Equal Pay Act or Age Discrimination in Employment Act do not require a Right to Sue. Age discrimination lawsuits may be filed 60 days after the charge has been filed with the EEOC, while lawsuits due to wage discrimination based on sex may be within two years from the last discriminatory paycheck.[10]

Litigation

The Office of General Counsel, which is led by an appointee of the President that has been confirmed by the Senate for a four-year term, prosecutes EEOC cases in order to recover relief for complainants the agency has found to be victims of discrimination.[18] The EEOC does not have the resources to file a lawsuit in every case where discrimination has been found and weighs the seriousness and potential impact on determining whether or not to litigate.[19] In FY 2020, the EEOC recovered $106 million in relief through litigation of 93 meritorious lawsuits, 13 of which were systemic, accounting for $69.9 million of the relief.[14] The EEOC defines systemic cases as "pattern or practice, policy and/or class cases where the discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company or geographic location," and all cases are investigated as potentially systemic.[7]

Remedies

When a finding of discrimination is found by the EEOC, the goal of the agency is injunctive relief, both to put the victim in the position they would have been in had the discrimination not occurred, and to stop and prevent the discriminatory behavior. This could include back-pay, job reinstatement, attorney's fees, expert witness fees, court costs, other compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Age and gender-based are not eligible for compensatory or punitive damages, but instead are limited to liquidated damages equal to the amount of back pay. Pecuniary future damages and non-pecuniary damages are limited per employee by the size of the employer:[20]

  • For employers with 15-100 employees, the limit is $50,000.
  • For employers with 101-200 employees, the limit is $100,000.
  • For employers with 201-500 employees, the limit is $200,000.
  • For employers with more than 500 employees, the limit is $300,000.

Investigative compliance policy

EEOC applies an investigative compliance policy when respondents are uncooperative in providing information during an investigation of a charge. If a respondent fails to turn over requested information, field offices are to subpoena the information, file a direct suit on the merits of a charge, or use the legal principle of adverse inference, which assumes the withheld information is against the respondent.[21]

History

On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."[22] It established the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, which then Vice President Lyndon Johnson was appointed to head. This was the forerunner of the EEOC.

The EEOC was established on July 2, 1965. Management directive 715 is a regulatory guidance document from the commission to all federal agencies regarding adherence to equal opportunity employment laws and reporting requirements.

The EEOC's first complainants were female flight attendants.[23] However, the EEOC at first ignored sex discrimination complaints, and the prohibition against sex discrimination in employment went unenforced for the next few years.[24] One EEOC director called the prohibition "a fluke... conceived out of wedlock."[24]

In 2005, the EEOC established the Systemic Task Force (STF) to evaluate how the agency combats systemic discrimination. In March 2006, the STF determined that the agency could not effectively address system discrimination without a nationwide system, but that the EEOC was uniquely prepared to fight systemic discrimination because the EEOC's broad authority, commissioner's charges, access to data, exemption from Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, focus on injunctive relief, and nationwide coverage. As a result, the commission created the role of Systemic Coordinator and Lead Systemic Investigator, and implemented programs that resulted in improved systemic expertise in the agency and all charges being investigated as potential systemic cases.[7]

In 2008, disability-based charges handled by the EEOC rose to a record 19,543, up 10.2 percent from the prior year and the highest level since 1995.[25] That may again be showing that because the EEOC has not adjusted many of their initial 1991 fines for inflation, the backlog of EEOC cases illustrates erosion of deterrence.

In 2011, the Commission included "sex-stereotyping" of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, as a form of sex discrimination illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[26][27] In 2012, the Commission expanded protection provided by Title VII to transgender status and gender identity.[26][28] In 2015, it concluded that for Title VII, sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation.[29][30] The Supreme Court upheld this position in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2020.

In 2012, the EEOC achieved a second consecutive year of a significant reduction in the charge inventory, something not seen since FY 2002. Due to a concerted effort, the EEOC reduced the pending inventory of private sector charges by 10 percent from FY 2011, bringing the inventory level to 70,312. This inventory reduction is the second consecutive decrease of almost ten percent in charge inventory.[31]

During FY 2020, the EEOC secured a record amount of recovery, more than $535 million, for victims of discrimination in the workplace.[32] Also, the agency reduced the private sector charge inventory by nearly 4 percent to the lowest level in 14 years.[33] Notably, the agency increased the percentage of charges resolved and those with an outcome favorable to the charging party increased by nearly two percent, to 17.4 percent.[34]

Staffing, workload, and backlog

In 1975, when the backlog reached more than 100,000 charges to be investigated, President Gerald Ford's full requested budget of $62 million was approved. A "Backlog Unit" was created in Philadelphia in 1978 to resolve the thousands of federal equal employment complaints inherited from the Civil Service Commission. In 1980, Eleanor Holmes Norton began re-characterizing the backlog cases as "workload" in her reports to Congress, thus fulfilling her promise to eliminate the backlog.[35]

In June 2006, civil rights and labor union advocates publicly complained that the effectiveness of the EEOC was being undermined by budget and staff cuts and the outsourcing of complaint screening to a private contractor whose workers were poorly trained. In 2006, a partial budget freeze prevented the agency from filling vacant jobs, and its staff had shrunk by nearly 20 percent from 2001. A Bush administration official stated that the cuts had been made because it was necessary to direct more money to defense and homeland security.[36] By 2008, the EEOC had lost 25 percent of its staff over the previous eight years, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. The number of complaints to investigate grew to 95,400 in fiscal 2008, up 26 percent from 2006.[37]

The outsourcing to Pearson Government Solutions in Kansas cost the agency $4.9 million and was called a "huge waste of money" by the president of the EEOC employees' union in 2006.[36]

Race and ethnicity

The EEOC requires employers to report various information about their employees, in particular their racial/ethnic categories, to prevent discrimination based on race/ethnicity. The definitions used in the report have been different at different times.

In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget gave a Federal Register Notice, the "Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity," which defined new racial and ethnic definitions.[38] As of September 30, 2007, the EEOC's EEO-1 report must use the new racial and ethnic definitions in establishing grounds for racial or ethnic discrimination.[39] If an employee identifies their ethnicity as "Hispanic or Latino" as well as a race, the race is not reported in EEO-1, but it is kept as part of the employment record.

A person's skin color or physical appearance can also be grounds for a case of racial discrimination.[40][41] Discrimination based on national origin can be grounds for a case on discrimination as well.[42]

Successes

On May 1, 2013, a Davenport, Iowa jury awarded the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissission damages totaling $240 million — the largest verdict in the federal agency's history — for disability discrimination and severe abuse.[43] The jury agreed with the EEOC that Hill County Farms, doing business as Henry's Turkey Service subjected a group of 32 men with intellectual disabilities to severe abuse and discrimination for a period between 2007 and 2009, after 20 years of similar mistreatment.[43] This victory received international attention and was profiled in the New York Times.[44]

On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in an 8–1 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia that an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant if the employer was motivated by avoiding the need to accommodate a religious practice. Such behavior violates the prohibition on religious discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[45] EEOC General Counsel David Lopez hailed the decision. "At its root, this case is about defending the quintessentially American principles of religious freedom and tolerance," Lopez said. "This decision is a victory for our increasingly diverse society and we applaud Samantha Elauf's courage and tenacity in pursuing this matter.”[45]

Criticism

Some employment-law professionals criticized the agency after it issued advice that requiring a high school diploma from job applicants could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The advice letter stated that the longtime lowest common denominator of employee screening must be "job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." A Ballard Spahr lawyer suggested, "There will be less incentive for the general public to obtain a high school diploma if many employers eliminate that requirement for job applicants in their workplace."[46]

The EEOC has been criticized for alleged heavy-handed tactics in their 1980 lawsuit against retailer Sears, Roebuck & Co. Based on a statistical analysis of personnel and promotions, EEOC argued that Sears both was systematically excluding women from high-earning positions in commission sales and was paying female management lower wages than male management. Sears, represented by lawyer Charles Morgan, Jr., counter-argued that the company had encouraged female applicants for sales and management, but women preferred lower-paying positions with more stable daytime working hours, as compared to commission sales, which demanded evening and weekend shifts and featured drastically varying paychecks, depending on the numbers of sales in a given pay period. In 1986, the court ruled in favor of Sears on all counts and noted that the EEOC had neither produced a single witness who alleged discrimination nor identified any Sears policy that discriminated against women.[47][48]

In a 2011 ruling against the EEOC, Judge Loretta A. Preska declared that the agency relied too heavily on anecdotal claims rather than on hard data, in a lawsuit against Bloomberg, L.P. that alleged discrimination against pregnant employees. In a ruling described in the New York Times[49] as "strongly worded," Preska wrote, "the law does not mandate 'work-life balance' and added that while Bloomberg had expected high levels of dedication from employees, the company did not treat women who took pregnancy leave differently from those who took leave for other reasons.

During the Trump administration, the EEOC came under criticism for being ineffective.[50][51] The budget allocated to the EEOC by Congress has forced it to downsize, cutting its original staffing levels by over 40%.[52]

Commissioners

All Commission seats and the post of general counsel to the commission are filled by the U.S. president, subject to confirmation by the Senate.[53]

Current
Name Title Party Took office Term expires
Charlotte Burrows Chair Democratic January 13, 2015 July 1, 2023†
Jocelyn Samuels Vice chair Democratic October 11, 2020 July 1, 2026†
Keith Sonderling Commissioner Republican September 30, 2020 July 1, 2024
Andrea R. Lucas Commissioner Republican October 23, 2020 July 1, 2025
Kalpana Kotagal Commissioner Democratic August 9, 2023 July 1, 2027

† Reappointed to serve a second consecutive term.

Former

Chairs
No. Chair of the EEOC Photo Start of term End of term President(s)
1 Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. May 26, 1965 May 11, 1966 Lyndon Johnson
2 Stephen N. Shulman September 14, 1966 July 1, 1967
3 Clifford Alexander Jr. August 4, 1967 ​
​
​ May 1, 1969 Richard Nixon
4 William H. Brown III May 5, 1969 December 23, 1973
5 John H. Powell Jr. December 28, 1973 August 8, 1974
August 8, 1974 March 18, 1975 Gerald Ford
Acting Ethel Bent Walsh 1975
6 Lowell W. Perry May 27, 1975 May 15, 1976
Acting Ethel Bent Walsh May 1976 ​
​ May 1977 Jimmy Carter
7 Eleanor Holmes Norton May 27, 1977 ​
​
​ February 21, 1981 Ronald Reagan
Acting J. Clay Smith Jr. 1981 1982
8 Clarence Thomas May 6, 1982 ​
​
​ March 8, 1990 George H. W. Bush
9 Evan J. Kemp Jr. March 8, 1990 ​
​
​ April 2, 1993 Bill Clinton
Acting Tony Gallegos April 5, 1993 1994
10 Gilbert Casellas September 29, 1994 December 31, 1997
Acting Paul Igasaki 1998
11 Ida L. Castro October 23, 1998 ​
​ August 13, 2001 George W. Bush
12 Cari M. Dominguez August 6, 2001 August 31, 2006
13 Naomi C. Earp September 1, 2006 2009
Acting Stuart J. Ishimaru January 20, 2009 April 7, 2010 Barack Obama
14 Jacqueline A. Berrien[55] April 7, 2010[56] September 2, 2014
15 Jenny R. Yang September 2, 2014[57] January 22, 2017
Acting Victoria Lipnic January 25, 2017[58] May 15, 2019 Donald Trump
16 Janet Dhillon May 15, 2019 January 20, 2021
17 Charlotte Burrows January 21, 2021 Present Joe Biden

General counsels
  • Charles T. Duncan, 1965–1966
  • Richard Berg (acting), 1966–1967
  • Kenneth Holbert (acting), 1967
  • Daniel Steiner, 1967–1969
  • Russell Spector (acting), 1969
  • Stanley P. Herbert, 1969–1971
  • Jack Pemberton, 1971–1972
  • William Carey, 1972–1975
  • Julia Cooper (acting), 1975
  • Abner Sibal, 1975–1978
  • Charles A. Shanor, 1987–1990
  • Donald Livingston, 1990–1993
  • Clifford Gregory Stewart, 1995–2000
  • Eric Dreiband, 2003–2005
  • Ronald S. Cooper, 2006–2009
  • David Lopez, 2010–2016
  • Sharon Fast Gustafson, 2019–2021
  • Karla Gilbride, 2023–present

See also

References
  1. "FedScope - Employment Cubes (Enhanced Interface)". www.fedscope.opm.gov. Archived from the original on 2021-04-21. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
  2. "EEOC Budget and Staffing History". Archives. EEOC.gov. May 12, 2009. Archived from the original on December 9, 2009.
  3. Van Loo, Rory (2018-08-01). "Regulatory Monitors: Policing Firms in the Compliance Era". Faculty Scholarship. Archived from the original on 2020-06-04. Retrieved 2020-10-10.
  4. "Discrimination by Type | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  5. See "42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 – Unlawful Employment Practices". Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 2010-02-04. and "42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 – Other Unlawful Practices". Archived from the original on 2011-10-08. Retrieved 2010-02-04.
  6. In addition, the EEOC, the Departments of Labor and Justice, the Civil Service Commission and the Office of Revenue Sharing have adopted Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures to assist employers in complying with federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination."Uniform Guidelines On Employee Selection Procedures". Archived from the original on December 6, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2010.
  7. "Systemic Enforcement at the EEOC | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  8. "Overview | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-26. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  9. "Laws Enforced by EEOC | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  10. "What You Can Expect After You File a Charge | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  11. "Confidentiality | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  12. "Alternative Dispute Resolution". Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on 2023-01-18. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  13. "Mediation | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  14. "EEOC FY 2020 Statistics: EEOC's Recovery on Behalf of Employees Dramatically Increased, Number of Discrimination Charges at All-Time Low". JDSupra. 2 April 2021. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  15. "Questions And Answers About Mediation | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  16. "Questions and Answers for Charging Parties on EEOC's New Position Statement Procedures | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  17. "What You Can Expect After a Charge is Filed | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-28.
  18. "Litigation | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  19. "Litigation Procedures | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  20. "Remedies For Employment Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
  21. AAjing
  22. States, President of the United. Executive Order 10925. Archived from the original on 2019-06-01. Retrieved 2019-05-31.
  23. Collins, Gail (14 October 2009). When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. Little, Brown. pp. 59–. ISBN 978-0-316-07166-6.
  24. Friedman, Barry (September 29, 2009). The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 290. ISBN 9780374220341. Retrieved June 29, 2011.
  25. "Ability Magazine: BAD BOYS – EEOC Tackles Job Discrimination" (2009)". Archived from the original on 2012-04-04. Retrieved 2012-04-05.
  26. "Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation". Archived from the original on February 15, 2013. Retrieved February 18, 2013.
  27. "EEOC Request No. 0520110649". Archived from the original on December 31, 2014. Retrieved February 18, 2013.
  28. "Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821". Archived from the original on December 31, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2013.
  29. Carpenter, Dale (2012-12-14). "Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-04-15. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  30. Tatectate, Curtis. "EEOC: Federal law bans workplace bias against gays, lesbians, bisexuals | Miami Herald Miami Herald". Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on 2019-04-28. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  31. "Enforcement and Litigation Statistics | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". EEOC. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-01-28.
  32. "Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Performance Report | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". Archived from the original on 2021-03-18. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  33. "Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Performance Report | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". Archived from the original on 2021-03-18. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  34. "Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Performance Report | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". Archived from the original on 2021-03-18. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  35. "Enforcing the Civil Rights Act: Fighting Racism, Sexism and the Ku Klux Klan. The Story of the Miami EEOC's First Class Action Trial." James Keeney, 2012 Civil Rights Publishing, Sarasota, FL
  36. Lee, Christopher (June 14, 2006). "EEOC Is Hobbled, Groups Contend: Case Backlog Grows as Its Staff Is Slashed, Critics Say". Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 21, 2016. Retrieved September 20, 2017.
  37. Vogel, Steve (March 31, 2009). "EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules". Washington Post. p. A15. Archived from the original on March 13, 2017. Retrieved September 20, 2017.
  38. "Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity". Archived from the original on 2004-02-08.
  39. Final Revisions of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) Archived August 13, 2009, at the Wayback Machine by the EEOC. The page contains links to FAQs, forms and instructions
  40. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "Race/Color Discrimination." August 15, 2007. "We may use this for the purpose of race and ethnicity.""Race/Color Discrimination". Archived from the original on 2009-08-12. Retrieved 2013-10-01.
  41. Kalev, Alexandra; Dobbin, Frank; Kelly, Erin (2006-08-01). "Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies". American Sociological Review. 71 (4): 589–617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404. ISSN 0003-1224. S2CID 10327121.
  42. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "National Origin Discrimination." August 15, 2007. "National Origin Discrimination". Archived from the original on 2009-08-12. Retrieved 2013-10-01.
  43. "Jury Awards $240 Million for Long-Term Abuse of Workers with Intellectual Disabilities". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1 May 2013. Archived from the original on 29 April 2018. Retrieved 29 April 2018. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  44. Barry, Dan (8 March 2014). "The 'Boys' in the Bunkhouse". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 17 May 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
  45. "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of EEOC in Abercrombie Religious Discrimination Case". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1 June 2015. Archived from the original on 22 October 2018. Retrieved 29 April 2018. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  46. Dave Boyer (1 January 2012). "EEOC: High school diploma requirement might violate Americans with Disabilities Act". Washington Times. Archived from the original on 3 January 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
  47. EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (Sears II).
  48. Possley, Maurice (1986). Sears Wins 12-year Fight Over Bias Archived 2013-05-13 at the Wayback Machine Chicago Tribune 4 February 1986. Retrieved 2012-12-10.
  49. Chen, David W. (17 August 2011). "Discrimination Suit Against Bloomberg L.P. Is Dismissed". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 October 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
  50. "Workplace discrimination is illegal. But our data shows it's still a huge problem". February 28, 2019. Archived from the original on December 6, 2019. Retrieved November 18, 2019 – via vox.com.
  51. Dini, Emir (June 20, 2019). "A Comparative Analysis of Employment Discrimination Case Outcomes". SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3404236. S2CID 210506331. SSRN 3404236.
  52. "EEOC Budget and Staffing History 1980 to Present | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". Archived from the original on 2021-03-18. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  53. "42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4 – Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". Archived from the original on 2011-10-08. Retrieved 2010-02-04.
  54. Press Office (September 14, 2009). "President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts". whitehouse.gov. Archived from the original on January 18, 2023. Retrieved February 27, 2021 – via National Archives.
  55. Press Office (July 16, 2009). "President Obama Announces Pick to Head Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". whitehouse.gov. Archived from the original on January 18, 2023. Retrieved February 27, 2021 – via National Archives.
  56. "Jacqueline A. Berrien Becomes Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". U.S. Senate Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2010-04-07. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2010-11-16.
  57. "President Appoints Jenny R. Yang EEOC Chair". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Archived from the original on 2019-12-22. Retrieved 2014-09-19.
  58. "Victoria Lipnic, Acting Chair". www.eeoc.gov. Archived from the original on 2020-04-21. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.