EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1971

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 72
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 17, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 2, 1971
• Content Type: REGULATION

~66 9 AREPORT a4gg00002-5
FILE CQY
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1971
JUNE 2, 1971.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HAWKINS, from the Committee on Education and Labor,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY AND SEPARATE VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1746]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1746) to further promote equal employment opportunities
for American workers, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
The basic purpose of H.R. 1746 is to grant the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission authority to issue, through well established
procedures, judicially enforceable cease and desist orders. The bill
would transfer the functions and responsibilities of the Office of Fed-
eral Contract Compliance (now in the Department of Labor-pursu-
ant to Executive Order 11246) to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; and transfer the Attorney General's authority in prac-
tice or pattern discrimination suits to the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission. The bill would broaden jurisdictional coverage by
deleting the existing exemptions of State and local government em-
ployees and of certain employees connected with educational institu-
tions. The bill would extend some protection to Federal employees. One
year after enactment, coverage is extended to employers and labor
unions with eight or more employees or members, a reduction from the
present requirement of 25 employees or members.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 .
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was established
under the authority of Title VII 'of" th6 Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Under that authority the Commission is not given the power to issue
judicially enforceable orders but is limited essentially to the function
of conciliation. In 1965 the Committee recommended passage of a bill
supporting case and desist authority. That bill (II.R. 10065) was
acted on favorably in the House of Representatives but was not taken
up by the Senate.
In the 91st Congress the Senate succeeded in passing S. 2453, a bill
granting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission self-
enforcing cease and desist authority. This Committee, during the
second half of the 91st Congress, favorably reported H.R. 17555,
identical, with two exceptions, to II.R. 1746. Neither S. 2453 nor II.R.
17555 reached the House floor for debate.
Provisions in II.R. 1746 not found in II.R. 17555 relate to the trans-
fer of the functions and responsibilities of the Office of Federal Con-
tract Compliance (pursuant to Executive Order 11246) to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission; and the transfer of the At-
torney General's authority in "pattern or practice" discrimination suits
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Time and experience have re-enforced this Committee's strongly
held view of the necessity of establishing the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission as a quasi-judicial agency with authority to
obtain enforcement of orders. ILR. 1746 is an effort to implement in
a meaningful way the national policy of equal. employment opportunity
for employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion,
national origin, or sex.
The General Subcommittee on Labor held six days of public hear-
ings on II.R. 17555 and related bills during the 91st Congress. The
principal witnesses were: Honorable William IT. Brown, III, Chair-
man, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Deputy Attorney
General Richard G. Kleindienst ; a panel representing the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, headed by Clarence Mitchell, Washington
Bureau, NAACP, including Thomas C. Harris, Associate Counsel,
AFT-CIO; former Commission Chairman Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.;
and Irving Kator, Director, Federal Equal Employment Opportunity,
U.S. Civil Service Commission.
The subcommittee held hearings on H.R. 1746 on March 3, 4, and
IS, 1971. These hearings were primarily concerned with the transfer
of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and the transfer of the
Attorney General's practice or pattern discrimination authority to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Witnesses, however,
were free to and did submit statements and discuss other significant
aspects of the proposed legislation. The principal witnesses were:
Deputy Assistant. Attorney General David L. Norman; Under Secre-
tary of Labor Laurence Silberman ; Assistant Secretary of Labor
Arthur Fletcher; OFCC Director John Wilks; Commission Chairman
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 3 CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
William If. Brown, III; Howard Glickstein, Staff Director, U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights; U.S. Representative Shirley Chisholm;
U.S. Representative Bella Abzug; Thomas C. Harris Associate Gen-
eral Counsel, AFL-CIO; Clarence Mitchell, NAACP; Irving Kator,
Assistant Executive Director, U.S. Civil Service Commission; Don
White, American Retail Federation; Lucille Shriver, National Federa-
tion of Business and Professional Woman; Robert Nystrom, Motorola,
Inc. ; and Warren Anderson, The Black Committee, Maywood, Illinois.
The subcommittee concluded its consideration of the bill in execu-
tive session on April 7, 1971, voting to report the bill to the full Com-
mittee without amendment. The Committee on Education and Labor
ordered II.R. 1746 by a rollcall vote of 21 to 12 on May 4, 1971.
NEED FUR TIIP] BILL
A little more than 6 years ago, Congress enacted Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e)-
2000(c-15). That act recognized the prevalence of discriminatory em-
ployment practices in the United States and the need for Federal legis-
lation to deal with the problem. Title VII of that Act, created the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which became effective
July 2, 1965. In the intervening 6 years, the Commission made an
heroic effort to reduce discrimination in employment which was found
to pervade our system.
Despite the commitment of Congress to the goal of equal. employ-
ment opportunity for all our citizens, the machinery created by the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not adequate.
Despite the progress which has been made since passage of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination against minorities and women
continues. The persistence of discrimination, and its detrimental
effects require a reaffirmation of our national policy of equal oppor-
tunity in employment. It is essential that seven years after the passage
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, effective enforcement procedures be
provided the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
strengthen its efforts to reduce discrimination in employment.
An examination of the statistics with respect to the progress of equal
employment opportunities clearly shows that the voluntary approach
currently applied has failed to eliminate employment discrimination.
During the first 5 years of its existence, the Commission has received
more than 52,000 charges. Of these, 35,445 were recommended for in-
vestigation. Of this number approximately 56% involved com-
plaints of discrimination because of race, 23% discrimination on
sex, and the remainder involved charges of discrimination because of
national origin or religion.
The number of charges is increasing. The incidence of discrimina-
tion does not appear to be waning. In Fiscal Year 1969, the Commis-
sion received 12,148 charges; in Fiscal Year 1970, the Commission
received 14,129 charges. In testimony before this Committee, William
II. Brown, III, Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, stated that during the first seven and a half months of
the current fiscal year, the Commission has received 14,644 charges, a
greater number than the total charges received for all of last year.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28? CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
With the steady growth in the number of cases filed with the Com-
mission, an effective and suitable procedure and remedy become
increasingly important. Effective remedies have not resulted from
present practice. Of the 35,445 charges that were recommended for in-
vestigation, reasonable cause was found in over 63% of the cases, but
,,in less than half of these cases was the Commission able to achieve a
totally or even partially successful conciliation.
There is nothing that would lead anyone to expect that with the
limited authority currently available to it the Commission might pro-
,duce any higher degree of compliance in the future. With the increas-
ing number of complaints it now receives, and in the absence of ade-
quate cease and desist enforcement procedures, the Commission can
only be expected to catalog an increasing number of complaints for
which there is no reasonable expectation of an adequate remedy.
The impact of the Commission's inability to obtain relief from em-
ployment discrimination is reflected in an examination of statistics
showing the distribution of minorities in occupational groups. While
the tables show some improvement since 1964, minority groups are not
obtaining their rightful place in our society.
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL WORK FORCE BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS
Professional technician----_---_---------------------------
6.7
8.3
9.1
14.5
14.8
farm manager --------------------------------------
Farmer
1.9
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.4
,
proprietors----------------------------_-------
Managers
2.6
3.0
3.5
11.1
11.4
,
Clerical
---------------------- -------------------------
7.6
12.9
13.2
17.7
18.0
---
Sales
----------------------- --------------------------
1.8
2.0
2.1
6.5
6.7
---
Craftsmen--
---------------------------------------------
7.0
8.5
8.2
13.6
13.5
-
Operatives-------------- -------------------------------
20.3
23.9
23.7
17.8
17.0
Private household ------------------------------------------
13.6
8.5
7.7
1.3
1.3
Service workers----------------- -------------------------
18.7
18.2
18.3
9.2
9.4
Farmworkers
------------------------------------------
6.8
3.2
2.9
1.7
1.6
-
Laborers(nonfarm)---------------------------------------
13.0
10.5
10.3
4.0
4.1
The situation of the working women is no less serious. Women
currently comprise approximately 38% of the total work force of the
Nation. There are approximately 30 million employed women.
Recent statistics released from the U.S. Department of Labor indi-
cate that there exists a profound economic discrimination against
women workers. Ten years ago, women made 60.8% of the average
salaries made by men in the same year; in 1968, women's earnings still
only represented 58.2% of the salaries made by men in that year. Simi-
larly, in that same year, 60% of women, but only 20% of men earned
less than $5,000. At the other end of the scale, only 3% of women, but
28 % of men had earnings of $10,000 or more.
Women are subject to economic deprivation as a class. Their self-
fulfillment and development is frustrated because of their sex. Numer-
ous studies have shown that women are placed in the less challenging,
the less responsible and the less remunerative positions on the basis of
their sex alone.
Such blatantly disparate treatment is particularly objectionable
in view of the fact that Title VII has specifically prohibited sex dis-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :5CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
crimination since its enactment in 1964. The Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission has progressively involved itself in the prob-
lems posed by sex discrimination, but its efforts here, as in the area
of racial discrimination, have been ineffective due directly to its ina-
bility to enforce its findings.
In recent years, the courts have done much to create a body of law
clearly disapproving of sex discrimination in employment.' Despite
the efforts of the courts and the Commission, discrimination against
women continues to be widespread, and is regarded by many as either
morally or physiologically justifiable.
This Committee believes that women's rights are not judicial diver-
tissements. Discrimination against women is no less serious than other
forms of prohibited employment practices and is to be accorded the
same degree of social concern given to any type of unlawful
discrimination.
Enactment of this bill will not automatically end employment dis-
crimination in this country. The bill offers no panaceas or guarantees
of success. The experiences of the last 6 years under Title VII, while
in many respects reflecting major advancements in securing equal op-
portunity for all Americans, nonetheless are disappointing in terms of
what minorities and women in this country have a right to expect.
The time, has come to bring an end to job discrimination once and
for all, and to insure every citizen the opportunity for the decent self-
respect that accompanies a job commensurate with one's abilities. The
hopeful prospects that Title VII offered millions of Americans in 1964
must be revived.
ESTIMATE OF COSTS
In an effort to secure an accurate estimate of the projected costs
of this legislation to satisfy the requirements of clause 7 of rule XIII
the General Subcommittee on Labor, through its chairman, the Hon-
orable John H. Dent, sought the views of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The response of the Commission to that
inquiry is contained in the following letter :
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., April22, 1971.
Hon. JOHN H. DENT,
Chairman, General Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Eduoation and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
-DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you for your letter of March 26, 1971, requesting
this Commission, pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 7 of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, to submit to the Subcommittee estimated costs for carrying
out the provisions of H.R. 1746. I have set out below our cost projections with
respect to H.R. 1746, based upon available data and workload approximations
for FY 1971 through FY 1976.
It is the Commission's view that the accompanying figures represent a
reasonable estimate of minimum additional budgetary requirements for ad-
ministration of the three new areas of the application of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1904 heretofore not discharged by any Federal agency:
See e.g., SVee7c8 v. Southern Bell Telephone Co.. 408 F. 2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969) ; Bone
v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 416 F. 2d 711 (7th Cir. 1969) ; Philips v. Martin Marietta
Corp., - U.S. S. Ct. 3 FEP Cases 40 (S. Ct. 1971) ; Diaz v.
Pan American, ---- F. 2d ---, 3 D, PD 8166 (C.A. 5, 1971) and cases cited therein.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
6
COST PROJECTIONS FOR H.R. 1746
[Figures in thousandsi
Fiscal year-
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Cease and desist operations ---------------------
501
9,431
11,912
12,081
12,123
12,151
Federal, State, county, and municipal jurisdiction-------------
2,600
3;900
3,900
3,900
3,900
Extended jurisdiction to 8or more employees -----------------
.685
4,034
4,213
4,223
4,243
In preparing the above figures, several assumptions have been made which are,
I feel, extremely important for consideration of these projections. In the first
instance, despite the Commission's desire to commence operations under its own
enforcement powers, it is unlikely that any of the operations proposed in H.R.
1746 could be implemented in any significant manner in FY 1971. It will he neces-
sary to develop administrative procedures to implement the bill, and this will
require some time. For example, the writing and approval of rules to establish
operating procedures and personnel recruitment to meet the additional opera-
tional requirements in H.R. 1746 will require several months. It is, therefore,
realistic to assume that. implementation of the cease and desist operations as well
as the other aspects of enforcement contained in the bill would not begin until
FY 1972, and that. the first full year of operation would not be until FY 1973.
Accordingly, the cost projections for FY 1071, and also for FY 1972, based upon
a full year's operation as requested by the Subcommittee, are hypothetical, inso-
far as they assume that operations under H.R. 1746 will begin immediately upon
its passage.
The cost projections for the cease and desist operations as proposed by H.R.
1746 have been derived from Commission caseload projections. Using these figures
as a base, the staffing requirements for implementation of the hearing procedures
encompassed by the cease and desist powers have been projected on the basis of
an adjudication of 15 cases per year for each hearing examiner and the prepara-
tion and presentation of 20 cases per year for each trial attorney. From these
figures, allowances have also been made for a minimum of supporting staff and
expenses which will be involved in maintaining the hearing process. It is difficult
for me to say at this time whether the cease and desist cost projections contained
herein are accurate. The assumptions regarding the number of cases that a
hearing examiner and a trial attorney will handle per year are based upon
approximations of the average length of an adjudication of a Title VII violation
based upon the estimated degree of complexity involved in such cases. It may well
evolve that these approximations are not realistic ; the estimates that each hear-
ing examiner will be able to hear 15 cases per year and that each trial attorney
can prepare 20 cases per year are derived from NLRB experience and may not
hold true for Title VII litigation.
The extension of Title VII jurisdiction to include Federal, State, county and
municipal employees will bring an additional 12,880,000 employees within the
provisions of the Act. As there is currently no uniform Federal law which ap-
plies in this area, it is difficult to project, with any degree of accuracy, the impact
of this extension of jurisdiction. However, due to the large number of employees
which this will bring within the provisions of the Act, it can be safely assumed
that this new availability of it Federal administrative forum, where none has
been available, will generate a substantial number of complaints. The figures
projected in the table above for this area of enforcement have been derived from
existant Civil Service Commission estimates regarding Federal EEO complaint
adjudication, and upon an approximation, based upon the number of employees
involved, for enforcement of complaints against State and local agencies.
The figures projected for the extension of Title VIT jurisdiction to include all
persons employed in establishments which employ eight or more full time em-
ployees have been derived from a projected 25% increase in the Commis-
sion's workload due to the extended coverage. The cost projections for this ex-
tended jurisdiction for FY 1972 assume that the jurisdictional expansion will
only operate for the last few months of that year and will not he operational
in FY 1971, as H.R. 1746 provides that this power will not become effective until
one year after the Act is passed. Similarly, the cost projection for the extended
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 7CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
jurisdiction to Federal, State, county and municipal employees in FY 1972 is
based upon less than a full year's operation, as the Act provides for a six-month's
delay in instituting this function.
The other two areas of enforcement to be assigned to the Commission by II.R.
1746, transfer of OFCC functions and enforcement of pattern or practice suits,
are currently administered by other Federal agencies, and do not, therefore,
represent areas of Federal enforcement where new funds will be needed. As re-
gards both the transfer of OFCC functions and the enforcement of pattern or
practice suits by the EEOC, H.R. 1746 specifically provides that the functions of
the respective agency currently administering these operations, together with
"such personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,
allocations, and other funds employed, used, held, available, or to be made avail-
able in connection with the functions transferred . . ." (emphasis added) shall
be transferred to the Commission. Accordingly, in projecting requirements for
these operations, the Commission restricted its projections to using only the ap-
propriation requirements proposed by these agencies, as set forth below :
[In thousands]
Fiscal year-
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
OFCCfunctions ---------------------------------
262
2,594
2,600
2,600
2,600
2,600
Pattern or practice enforcement___________________
300
1,800
1,800
1,800
1, 800
1,800
Once the above referenced operations have been transferred to the Commis-
sion, however, it may subsequently be necessary to modify these figures, de-
pendent upon any change in the enforcement patterns which may become ap-
parent after the consolidation of the enforcement of employment discrimination
as proposed by H.R. 1746.
If I can be of any further assistance to you on this matter, please feel free
to call on me.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM H. BROWN, III.
The estimate by the General Subcommittee on Labor of the costs
of implementing H.R. 1746 vary somewhat from the views of the
Commission and are contained in the following chart :
ESTIMATE BY THE GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING H.R. 1746
[In thousands[
Cease and desist operations______________________ 300
7,431
9,912
10,081
11,123
11,151
Extension ofjiurisdiction to Federal employees ----------------
900
900
900
900
900
Extension of jurisdiction to State, county, and
municipal employees___________________________________
1,600
2,034
3,000
3,000
4,000
2
600
Transfer of OFCCfunctions ----------------------- 262
2,594
2,600
2,600
2,600
,
0
Transfer of pattern or practice functions ----------- 300
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,80
243
Extension of jurisdiction to 8 or more employees___________ ___
3,034
3, 213
3,223
3,223
4,
It will be noted that the subcommittee estimates, in most cases, are
lower than those of the Commission. With all due respect to the Com-
mission, it is felt, that staff recruitment and preparation of applicable
implementing rules and regulations will require more time than antici-
pated by the Commission. Further, the mere existence of a law with
enforcement authority will be a deterring factor; therefore it is highly
speculative how many new cases will arise as a result of the extension
of coverage. The subcommittee does not anticipate any significant
costs based on this factor; though a large number of small employers
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
would be covered. Also, the law would not usurp the State agencies,
and undoubtedly a large number of cases would still be settled at the
State level.
The transfer of functions from OFCC, CSC, and Justice, will not
require additional Federal expenditures because the transfers will also
involve the conveyance of "unexpended balances of appropriations, al-
locations, and other funds employed, used, held, available, or to be
made available in connection with the functions transferred ..."
During the preparation and presentation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination tended to be viewed
as it series of isolated and distinguishable events, due, for the most part,
to ill-will on tliv part of some identifiable individual or organization.
It was thought that it scheme which stressed conciliation rather than
compulsory processes would be more appropriate for the resolution of
this essentially "human" problem. Litigation, it was thought, would
be necessary only on an occasional basis in the event of determined
recalcitrance. Experience, however, has shown this to be an oversim-
plified expectation, incorrect in its conclusions.
Employment discrimination, as we know today, is a far more com-
plex and pervasive phenomenon. Experts familiar with the subject
generally describe the problem in terms of "systems" and "effects"
rather than simply intentional wrongs. The literature on the subject
is replete with discussions of the mechanics of seniority and lines of
progression, perpetuation of the present effects of earlier discrimina-
tory practices through various institutional devices, and testing and
validation requirements.' The forms and incidents of discrimination
which the Commission is required to treat are increasingly complex.
Particularly to the untrained observer, their discriminatory nature
may not appear obvious at first glance. A recent striking example was
provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in Griggs v. Duke
Power Co., U.S. , 91 S.Ct. 849, 3 FEP Cases 175 (S.Ct.
1971), where the Court held that the use of employment tests as de-
terminants of an applicant's job qualification, even when nondiscrim-
inatory and applied in good faith by the employer, was in violation
of Title VII if such tests work a discriminatory effect in hiring pat-
terns and there is no showing of an overriding business necessity for
the use of such criteria.
It is increasingly obvious that the entire area of employment dis-
crimination is one whose resolution requires not only expert assistance,
but also the technical perception that a problem exists in the first place,
and that the system complained of is unlawful.
2 See, e.g., Note.-80 Harv. L. Rev. 1260 (1967) ; Cooper and Sobol, "Seniority and
Testing Under Fair Employment Laws : A General Approach To Objective Criteria of
Hiring and Promotion," 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1623 (1969) ; Blumrosen, "The Duty of Fair
Recruitment Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964," 22 Rutgers Law Review 465 (1968) ;
Sovern, "Legal Restraints on Racial Discrimination in Employment" (1966) "Bonfield
the Substance of American Fair Employment Practices Legislation I and II" 61 and 62
Northwestern Law Review 707 and 19 (1967). See also Quarles v. Phillip' Morris, 279
F. Supp. 505 (E.D. Va., 1968) ; United States v. Local 189, United Papermakers 282 F.
Supp. 39 (E.D. La., 1968) 416 F. 2d 980 (C.A. 5, 1969) ; Asbestos Workers, Local 53
v. Vogler, 407 F. 2d. 1047 (6.A. 5 1969) and cases cited therein.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
This kind of expertise normally does not reside in either the per-
sonnel or legal arms of employers, and the result in terms of concilia-
tion is often an impasse, with the respondent unwilling or unable to
understand the problem in the way the Commission perceives it. As
we have already noted, the Commission has been able to achieve suc-
cessful conciliation in less than half of the cases in which reasonable
cause was determined. It has been the emphasis on voluntariness that
has proven to be most detrimental to the successful operation of Title
VII. In cases posing the most profound consequences, respondents have
more often than not shrugged off the Commission's entreaties and re-
lied upon the unlikelihood of the parties suing them.
Facts, statistical evidence and experience demonstrate that em-
ployers, labor organizations, employment agencies and joint labor-
management committees continue to engage in conduct which con-
travenes the provisions of Title VII. The existence of such practices
demonstrates the immediate need to effectuate the purposes of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
II.R. 1746 remedies the failure to include effective enforcement
powers in Title VII by enacting a new section 706 (section 4 of the
bill) which empowers the Commission, after it has exhausted the pro-
cedures for achieving voluntary compliance, to issue complaints and
hold hearings, to issue cease and desist orders against discriminatory
practices, and to seek enforcement of its orders in the Federal Courts.
Comparable powers are now exercised by most Federal regulatory
agencies, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board, to name a few,
as well as the vast majority of State Fair Employment Practice Com-
missions. By providing this expansion of Title VII authority, we
will remove present shortcoming of the act and provide a quick and
effective remedy against employment discrimination.
Under the new section 706, in the event of a violation of Title VII
the Commission would proceed in the following manner :
1. Upon the filing of a charge, the Commission would serve a copy
of the charge on the respondent and would investigate. If, after inves-
tigation, the Commission decides that there is no reasonable cause to
believe that the charge is true, it would dismiss the charge and notify
both the person claiming to be aggrieved and the respondent (sec. 706
706(b)).
2. If the Commission finds reasonable cause, it would seek to elimi-
nate the unlawful practice by informal methods of conference, con-
ciliation, and persuasion (sec. 706(b)). An agreement for the elimi-
nation of the alleged unlawful practice may be entered into by the
Commission any time between the filing of the charge and until the
record is filed with the Court of Appeals (sec. 706(i) ).
3. Existing law relating to actions filed under State or local law
has been retained. In such cases, the Commission will not assume
jurisdiction for sixty days after the commencement of the action
under the State or local authority (sec. 706(c) ).
4. If the Commission determines that it is unable to secure an accept-
able agreement, the Commission will then issue and serve upon the
respondent a complaint setting forth the facts upon which the allega-
tion is based and a notice of hearing (sec. 706(f)). The respondent
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : ,A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
and the party claiming to be aggrieved shall be the primary parties
to the proceeding, but the Commission may grant any other persons the
right to intervene, file briefs, or appear as amicus curiae (sec. 706(g) ).
5. After completion of a hearino, if an unlawful employment prac-
tice is found to have occurred, the 6ommission is empowered to issue an
order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from continuing
such practices. The Commission may also prescribe such relief as the
case may require (sec. 706(h)). Hearings conducted pursuant to this
section will be governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
? 551, et. seq.
6. Any person who has been affected by a decision of the Commission
may petition for a review of such order in the appropriate United
States court of appeals (sec. 706(1) ). All litigation to which the Com-
mission is a party or affecting the Commission, except litigation in the
Supreme Court, shall be conducted by the Commission's attorneys;
litigation in the Supreme Court will be conducted by the Attorney
General (sec. 706 (n)) .
7. Where the Commission feels that, as a result of its preliminary
investigation prompt judicial action is necessary, it may petition the
appropriate United States district court for a preliminary injunction
or temporary restraining order, pending its final disposition of the
charge (sec. 706 (o) ).
The Committee has considered various enforcement mechanisms. Ex-
perience demonstrates that of the enforcement mechanisms available,
cease-and-desist authority will achieve the fairest and most expedi-
tious results.-9
Administrative tribunals are better equipped to handle the com-
plicated issues involved in employment discrimination cases. In em-
ployment discrimination litigation the District Courts increasingly
have found themselves grappling with difficult problems of discrimina-
tory practices inherent in employers' basic methods of recruitment,
hiring, placement or promotions. Issues that have perplexed courts
include plant-wide restructuring of pay scales and progression lines,
seniority rosters and testing.
The sorting out of the complexities surrounding employment dis-
crimination can give rise to enormous expenditure of judicial resources
in already heavily overburdened Federal district courts. For example,
Judge Allgood of the Federal District Court for the Northeastern Dis-
trict of Alabama, wrote an opinion 157 pages in length in U.S. v. H. K.
s The committee's view regarding the benefits of cease and desist authority for the
Commission has received support from public interest groups. Typical is a letter to the
General Subcommittee on Labor, from David A. Brody, Director of the Washington, P.C.
Office of the Anti-Defamation League, stating : "In our view, authority to issue cease and
desist orders after an administrative hearing will be more effective in bringing about
compliance with the law than will the court enforcement approach. It is only through
the administrative hearing procedure that regulatory agencies are able to handle ex-
peditiously, and dispose of, the multitude of cases coming before them. The administrative
agency is better suited and better geared than the courts for carrying out the public rights
which Congress has enacted into law. As the late Justice Frankfurter has stated : "Unlike
courts, which are concerned primarily with the enforcement of private rights although
public interests may thereby be implicated, administrative agencies are predominantly
concerned with enforcing public rights although private interests may thereby be affected.
To no small degree administrative agencies for the enforcement of public rights were
established by Congress because more flexible and less traditional procedures were called
for than those evolved by the courts. It is therefore essential to the vitality of the
administrative process that the procedural powers given to these administrative agencies
not be confined within the conventional modes by which business is done in courts."
Dissenting opinion. Federal Communications Commission v. National Broadcasting Co.,
Inc., 319 U.S. 239,248 (1943).
Approved For. Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 lclA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
Porter, a Title VII suit alleging employment discrimination in a sin-
gle steel plant. Judge Allgood stated in his opinion that enough use
was made of pre-trail discovery in that case to "fill several court files".
Administrative tribunals are better suited to rapid resolution of such
complex issues than are Courts. Efficiency and predicability will be
enhanced if the necessarily detailed case by case findings of fact and
fashioning of remedy is performed by experts in the subject matter.
Moreover, administrative tribunals are less subject to technical rules
governing such matters as pleadings and motion practice-which af-
ford opportunities for dilatory tactics-and are less constrained by
formal rules of evidence-which give rise to a lengthier (and more
costly) process of proof.
Further, congested Court calendars necessitate inordinate delays in
bringing cases to trial. In fiscal 1970, in the Southern District of New
York, the average wait from the time a case was ready for trial until
nonjury trial was 38 months. In the Eastern District of Louisiana the
delay was 24 months. While delays also are encountered in administra-
tive proceedings, the average amount of time from the filing of a
charge until the issuance of the trial examiner's decision in an unfair
labor practice case before the National Labor Relations Board is less
than 71/2 months. Approximately 95% of unfair labor practice cases
are disposed of without further proceedings beyond this stage.
In addition, past experience with administrative hearings and court
enforcement indicates that cease-and-desist would be more effective.
Experience has shown that one of the main advantages of granting
enforcement power to a regulatory agency is that the existence of the
sanction encourages settlement of complaints before the enforcement
stage is reached.
The NLRB disposes of approximately 95% of its cases at the ad-
ministrative level. Information on State fair employment practice
commissions indicates this is similarly effective cease-and-desist au-
thority. For example, through 1969, the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Commission pointed to the fact that while 47 cease-and-
desist orders were issued in equal employment cases before the State
agency, another 3,838 complaints were processed successfully and ad-
justed without the need for such order.
Cease and desist authority will assure greater consistency in the de-
velopment of equal employment law since decisions will be rendered
by one agency rather than by several hundred district court judges.
The uniformity and predictability of rules and decisions are of sig-
nificant importance to employers who must look to the Federal Gov-
ernment for guidance in equal employment practices and to individuals
who look to the Federal Government for leadership and assurance that
employment opportunity exists without regard to race, color, religion,
sex or national origin.
PRIVATE ACTIONS
The bill retains the right of an individual to bring a, civil suit under
the Act in Section 715 (Section 6(j) of the bill). Section 715 provides
that if the Commission finds no reasonable cause, fails to make a find-
ing of reasonable cause, or takes no action in respect to a charge, or
has not within 180 days issued a complaint nor entered into a con-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2f2: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
ciliation or settlement agreement which is acceptable to the person
aggrieved, it shall notify the person aggrieved. Within 60 days after
such notification the person aggrieved shall then have the right to
commence an action under the provisions of the Act against the re-
spondent in the proper United States district court. Provision for the
individual's right to sue is presently contained in Section 706(e) of
Title VII. Section 715 in the bill retains this right and extends both the
period of Commission action and the time period allowed for filing an
action in the appropriate court.
In recent years regulatory agencies have been submerged with in-
creasing workloads which strain their resources to the breaking point.
The Commission has stated, in testimony before this committee, that
its caseload has increased even more rapidly than its projections had
anticipated. The result of this increasing use of many of the Federal
regulatory agencies has frequently affected those agencies' abilities to
remain current on all of the matters for which they are responsible.
This has led to lengthy delays in the administrative process and has
frequently frustrated the remedial role of the agency. In the case of
the Commission, the burgeoning workload, accompanied by insufficient
funds and a shortage of staff, has, in many instances, forced a party to
wait 2 to 3 years before final conciliation procedures can be instituted.
This situation leads the committee to believe that the private right of
action, both under the present Act and in the bill, provides the ag-
grieved party a means by which he may be able to escape from the
administrative quagmire which occasionally surrounds a case caught
in an overloaded administrative process.
In this respect, it is important to note that subsection 715 (a) in the
bill provides that where the individual has elected to pursue his action
in the court, the court may, in such circumstances as it deems just,
appoint an attorney for the complainant and authorize the commence-
ment of the action without the payment of fees, costs or security. By
including this provision in the bill, the committee emphasizes that the
nature of Title VII actions more often than not pits parties of unequal
strength and resources against each other. The complainant, who is usu-
ally a member of a disadvantaged class, is opposed by an employer who
not infrequently is one of the nation's major producers, and who has at
his disposal a vast array of resources and legal talent.
The committee was concerned about the interrelationship between
the newly created cease and desist enforcement powers of the Com-
mission and the existing right of private action. It concluded that
duplication of proceedings should be avoided. The bill, therefore,
contains a provision for termination of Commission jurisdiction once
a private action has been filed (except for the power of the Commis-
sion to intervene in the private actions). It contains as well a provision
for termination of the right of private action once the Commission
issues a complaint or enters into a conciliation or settlement agreement
which is satisfactory to the Commission and to the person aggrieved.
If such an agreement is not acceptable to the aggrieved party, his
private right of action is preserved.
The bill provides that an aggrieved person's right to institute it
private action should be reactivated under certain circumstances
where the Commission does not act promptly after issuing a complaint.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : cjA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
Section 715 (a) provides that an aggrieved person may bring an inde-
pendent action against the respondent if the Commission has not is-
sued its order within 180 days. The committee believes that aggrieved
persons are entitled to have their cases processed promptly and that.
the Commission should develop its capacity to proceed rapidly to hear-
ing and decision once the complaint is issued. The committee recog-
nizes that it will not be possible to render a decision in all cases within
the time limit prescribed. The complexity of many of the charges,.
and the time required to develop the cases, is well recognized by
the committee. It is assumed that individual complainants, who are
apprised of the need for the proper preparation of a complex com-
plaint involving multiple issues and extensive discovery procedures,
would not cut short the administrative process merely to encounter the
same kind of delays in a court proceeding. It would, however, be ap-
propriate for the individual to institute a court action where the delay
is occasioned by administrative inefficiencies. The primary concern
must be protection of the aggrieved person's option to seek a prompt
remedy in the best manner available. It should be noted, however,
that it is not the intention of the committee to permit an aggrieved
party a chance to retry his case merely because he is dissatisfied with
the Commission's action. Once the Commission has issued an order,
further proceedings must be in the courts of appeals pursuant to sub-
section 706 (1) of the bill.
"PATTERN OR PRACTICE" SUITS
Section 707 of the act has been amended by transferring the "pattern
or practice" suit authority from the Department of Justice to the
Commission.
"Pattern or practice" discrimination suits are currently handled in
the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. This Division,
established some 15 years ago, and has had its responsibilities greatly
increased by virtue of the civil rights legislation enacted in 1964, 1965,
and 1968. It has been given authority to prosecute suits in a variety
of areas including public accommodations, public facilities, schools,
housing, and discrimination in Federally assisted programs. It has
also received authority to deal with voting discrimination and to act
against persons who interfere with the civil rights of others.
Unfortunately, the size of the Division has not kept pace with its
vastly increased responsibilities. As a consequence the Division has
been highly selective and very limited in the number and the nature of
suits which it has filed. It has been unable to pursue title VII suits
with the vigor and intensity needed to reduce the wide-spread preva-
lence of systemic discrimination. Indeed, for several years it has
accorded the lowest priority to employment discrimination cases.
Those selected suits which the Division has been able to bring, how-
ever, have contributed significantly to the Federal effort to combat
employment discrimination.4
189 United Papermaker8 4
282 (E .D. La. 18 8), afrmed 416 F 2d 980 (5th Cir. 19699p)), teat deniede397 U S. 9195(1970) 5 P.
196 Internat onalsCorp., 415 F.l2d?.038,110 5 2(5thOCiir,. 1969)(5 U.Sly. She t Metal Workers
International Association Local 36, 416 F. 2d (8th Cir. 1969) ; U.S. v. Georgia Power
Co., 301 F. Supp. 538 (N.11. Ga. 1969).
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
14
Unrelenting broad-scale action against patterns or practices of dis-
crimination is however, critical in combatting employment discrimi-
nation. The dommittee believes these powers should be exercised by
the Commission as an integral and coordinated part of the overall
enforcement effort.
Pattern or practice discrimination is a pervasive and deeply im-
bedded form of discrimination. Specific acts or incidents of discrimi-
nation within the Commission's jurisdiction are frequently sympto-
matic of a pattern. or practice which Title VII seeks to eradicate. The
Commission has the basic responsibility to achieve the objectives of
Title VII. Since the. Commission is being vested with cease and desist
enforcement authority, it is imperative that it be empowered also to
deal with "pattern or practice" discrimination in order to deal compre-
hensively with systemic discrimination.
The Committee feels that the transfer of the "pattern or practice"
jurisdiction to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
would eliminate overlapping jurisdictions and unnecessary duplica-
tion of functions. It would promote uniformity in development of law,
goals, policies, and procedures and promote economic use of govern-
mental resources. "Pattern or practice" jurisdiction in the Department
of Justice was justified at a time when the Commission did not have
its own enforcement powers. However, with the acquisition of cease
and desist powers, the Commission's operations are sufficiently broad
to encompass "pattern or practice" violations as well as individual
complaints of discrimination.
The Commission is best able to determine where "pattern or practice"
litigation is warranted. It has access to the most. current statistical com-
putations and analyses regarding employment patterns and has the
most extensive expertise in dealing with employment discrimination.
Most import.nltly, persons charged with unfair employment prac-
tices should not be answerable to several Federal agencies pursuing
separate policies. Multifarious remedies cause undue burden and har-
assment by a multiplicity of simultaneous or successive procedures.
An example is the Crown Zellerbach Corp. vs. U.S. (Supra. 5th ci.r.
cuit, 1969) where the union and employer after negotiating a compli-
ance agreement, with the Commission were nevertheless subjected to
litigation in the Federal court. Next the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance entered the picture. Ultimately the Department of Jus-
tice filed suit. Such duplication and overlapping proceedings are bur-
densome and harassing and should be avoided.
TRANSFER OF THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
Approximately one third of the Nation's labor force is employed by
government contractors. Not infrequently these employers are
the Nation's largest and most prestigious firms. Because of their size
and standing in the business community, these employers are leaders
in the employment practices of their respective industries. The policies
they adopt, therefore, are frequently prototypes for the industry at
lar e.
Section 717(f) of the H.R. 1746 transfers all the authority, func-
tions, and responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Ex-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :lelA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
ecutive Order 11246 relating to contract compliance to the Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Commission.
Pursuant to Executive Order 11246, the Secretary of Labor is re-
sponsible for the administration of the Federal Government's contract
compliance program as prescribed by the executive order. He is respon-
sible for adopting such rules and regulations and issuing such orders
as he deems necessary and appropriate to achieve the purposes of the
order. The Secretary of Labor through OFCC monitors, coordinates
and evaluates the Government-wide contract compliance program and
supervises the activities of the 15 Federal contracting agencies which
have responsibility for contract compliance in their respective areas.
Despite the increasingly strong Presidential commitment to the
goals of equal employment opportunity, despite the strength of the
sanctions available to secure this goal, and despite the potential effec-
tiveness of the Federal monitoring mechanisms, the contract com-
pliance program has not been successful.
The Committee believes that the transfer will benefit both the ad-
ministration of the contract compliance program and the Title VII
program. The two programs are addressed to the same basic mission-
the elimination of discrimination in employment.
The obligations imposed on the government contractor by the Exec-
utive Order would reinforce the obligations imposed by Title VII. The
transfer would promote the centralized enforcement of all Federal em-
ployment non-discrimination programs. It would reduce administra-
tive overlap and encourage coordination. Clarity, uniformity, and pre-
dictability in policy and practice are aided by having the definition of
discrimination and the shaping of remedies developed by a single
agency. More significantly, it will authorize a single agency with a
full complement of enforcement mechanisms that can be coordinated
in the attack on employment discrimination.
Studies have shown that current jurisdictional overlap between
the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission have contributed to confusion, duplication
and a general lack of coordination of equal employment opportunity
enforcement programs.
Although administrative efforts have been made to coordinate the
overlapping legal jurisdictions of the Commission and OFCC, such as
the memorandum of understanding agreed to in May 1970, they have
not been effective. Each agency has continued independently to de-
velop its goals, policies and programs. As a result, the entire Federal
effort to end employment discrimination in the private sector has
suffered.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in its report, Federal Civil
flights Enforcement Effort noted that OFCC has established industry-
wide hiring goals without full consultation with the Commission
which possesses substantial knowledge and expertise in this area. The
Commission on the other hand, has held hearings to examine the pat-
terns of industry-wide discrimination without consultation or effective
participation of OFCC. Cases continue to be referred between the
Commission and OFCC on an ad hoc basis.
The report concluded that "until an effective procedure is developed
to assure that the Commission and OFCC act in coordination, prog-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/281~CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
ress in achieving the goal of equal employment opportunity will con-
tinue to be impeded." To achieve this end the report recommends that
the contract compliance responsibilities of the Office of Federal Con-
tract Compliance be transferred to the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission.
This conclusion corresponds with the recommendations made in an
earlier publication of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Jobs and
Civil flights, prepared by Richard P. Nathan, Associate Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, then with the Brookins Insti-
tute. Mr. Nathan recommended that the contract compliance unction
of OFCC be transferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission. The report underscored the fact that Title VII and the
Executive Order 11246 are addressed to the same problem-identify-
ing and remedying employment discrimination-and that there is not
reasonable basis for continuing to have two duplicating mechanisms
dealing with the same problem.
The Committee believes that the transfer would substantially in-
crease the effectiveness of both the contract compliance and Title VII
enforcement programs. Affirmative action is relevant not only to the
enforcement of Executive Order 11246 but is equally essential for
more effective enforcement of Title VII in remedying employment
discrimination. H.R. 1746 would confer, cease-and-desist authority as
well as contract termination and debarment authority on the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. The availability of these com-
plementary sanctions will enhance the administration of the Federal
equal employment programs.
The Federal contract compliance program always has suffered from
the great reluctance of administrators to use debarment and contract
termination sanction.
Although contract termination could become an effective sanction if
used properly, it is clear that the compliance program could be
strength considerably if alternative remedies were made available.
An effective way to accomplish this is to transfer the contract compli-
ance effort to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission while
at the same time giving the Commission power to issue cease-and-
desist orders to prevent unlawful employment practices. Cease-and-
desist power exercised by the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission would prove to be an effective sanction supplementary or
alternative to termination of a contract. Conversely, having the au-
thority to direct that contracts be terminated and contractors debarred
would enhance the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
ability to ensure that its cease and desist orders are obeyed.
The transfer of OFCC's contract compliance program to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission will not impair the procure-
ment function of the Executive branch of the government nor will it
interfere with the government's internal functions. Primary responsi-
bility for compliance with still rest with the various compliance agen-
cies. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will be re-
sponsible, however, for issuing basic guidelines to coordinate and give
guidance to the compliance program. In addition, the Commision will
provide an additional independent source of review and resource if
the compliance agencies fail to meet their obligations.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :1dlA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Presently approximately 10.1 million persons are employed by State
and local governmental units. This figure represents an increase of
over 2 million employees since 1964. Indications are that the number of
employees in State and local government will continue to increase,
perhaps even more rapidly. Few of these employees, however, are
afforded the protection of an effective forum to assure equal employ-
ment. The bill amends section 701 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(section 2 of the bill) to include State and local governments, govern-
mental agencies and political subdivisions within the definition of
an "employer" under Title VII. All State and local government em-
ployees would under the bill have access to the remedies available
under the Act.
In a report released in 1969, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
examined equal employment opportunity in public employment in
seven urban areas located throughout the country-North as well as
South. The report's findings indicate that widespread discrimination
against minorities exists in State and local government employment,
and that the existence of this discrimination is perpetuated by the
presence of both institutional and overt discriminatory practices. The
report cites widespread perpetuation of past discriminatory practices
through de facto segregated job ladders, invalid selection techniques,
and stereotyped misconceptions by supervisors regarding minority
group capabilities. The study also indicates that employment discrim-
ination in State and local governments is more pervasive than in the
private sector. The report found that in six of the seven areas studied,
Negroes constitute over 70 percent of the common laborers, but that
most white-collar jobs were found to be largely inaccessible to minority
persons. For example, in Atlanta and Baton Rouge, there were no
blacks in city managerial positions.
In another report issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
in 1970, Mexican Americans and the Administration of Justice in
the Southwest, the Commission found, on the basis of a 1968 survey,
that in the law enforcement agencies and district attorneys' offices
in the five Southwestern States, Mexican Americans were generally
underrepresented in proportion to their demographic distribution.
The statistics in this report show that in the Southwestern States
Mexican Americans, who constitute approximately 12 percent of the
population, account for only 5.2 percent of police officers and 6.11
percent of civilian employers with law enforcement agencies.
The problem of employment discrimination is particularly acute
and has the most deleterious effect in these governmental activities
which are most visible to the minority communities (notably educa-
tion, law enforcement, and the administration of justice) with the
result that the credibility of the government's claim to represent all
the people equally is negated.
This widespread discrimination is evidence that State and local
governmental units have not instituted equal employment opportunity
required by the national policy to eliminate discrimination in em-
ployment. In its 1969 report, For All the People ... By All the People,
the U.S. Civil Rights Commission concludes that :
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
The basic finding of this report is that State and local
governments have failed to fulfill their obligation to assure
equal job opportunity. . . . Not only do State and local
governments consciously and overtly discriminate in hiring
and promoting minority group members, but they do not
foster positive programs to deal with discriminatory treat-
ment on the job.
The Constitution is as imperative in its prohibition of discrimina-
tion in state and local government employment as it is in barring
discrimination in Federal jobs. The courts have consistently held that
discrimination by state and local governments, including job dis-
crimination, violates the Fourteenth Amendment and is prohibited.
While an individual has a right of action in the appropriate court
if he has been discriminated against, the adequacy of protection
against employment discrimination by state and local governments
has been severely impeded by the failure of the Congress to provide
Federal administrative machinery to assist the aggrieved employee.
There are two exceptions. Federal Merit Standards provisions are
applied to approximately 250,000 state employees where the Federal
and state governments participate jointly in furnishing government
services, and there are nondiscrimination requirements Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracts which are
applicable to approximately 900 local urban renewal agencies and
2,000 local public housing authorities.
Otherwise, state and local. governments constitute the only large
group of employees in the nation who are almost entirely exempt
from Federal nondiscrimination protections. Although the aggrieved
individual may enforce his rights directly in the Federal district
courts, this remedy, as already noted, is frequently an empty promise
due to the expense and. time involved in pursuing a Federal court suit.
It is unrealistic to expect disadvantaged individuals to bear thwo
burden.
The Committee feels that it is an injustice to provide employees
in the private sector with an administrative forum in which to redress
their grievances while at the same time, denying a similar protection
to the increasing number of state and local employees. Accordingly,
H.R. 1746 provides the administrative remedies available to employees
in the private sector should also be extended to state and local
employees.
In establishing the applicability of Title VII to State and local
employees, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the individual's
right to file a civil action in his own behalf, pursuant to the Civil
Rights Act of 1870 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. ? 1981 and 1983, is in no
way affected. During the floor debate surrounding the passage of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was made clear that the Act
was not intended to preempt existing rights under the National Labor
Relations Act or the Railway Labor Act. Title VII was envisioned
as an independent statutory authority meant to provide an aggrieved
individual with an additional remedy to redress employment dis-
h See e.g., ShelIV v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) ; Burton v. Wilmington Parking Au-
thority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :1@:IA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
erimination. Two recent court decisions, Young v. International Tele-
phone and Telegraph Co., F. 2d , 3 FEP Cases 145 (3rd Cir.
1971)) and Saunders v. Dobbs House, 431 F. 2d 1097 (5th Cir. 1970),
have affirmed this Committee's belief that the remedies available to
the individual under Title VII are co-extensive with the indivdual's
right to sue under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42
U.S.C. ? 1981, and that the two procedures augment each other and are
not mutually exclusive. The bill, therefore, by extending jurisdiction to
State and local government employees does not affect existing rights
that such individuals have already been granted by previous
legislation.
The expansion of Title VII coverage to State and local government
employment is firmly embodied in the principles of the Constitution
of the United States. The Constitution has recognized that it is inim-
ical to the democratic form of government to allow the existence of
discrimination in those bureaucratic systems which most directly affect
the daily interactions of this Nation's citizens. The clear intention of
the Constitution, embodied in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments, is to prohibit all forms of discrimination.
Legislation to implement this aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment
is long overdue, and the committee believes that an appropriate rem-
edy has been fashioned in the bill. Inclusion of state and local em-
ployees among those enjoying the protection of Title VII provides
an alternate administrative remedy to the existing prohibition against
discrimination perpetuated "under color of state law" as embodied in
the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. ? 1983. In extending Title
VII coverage, the Committee recognizes that States frequently can
best deal with violations which occur within their boundaries and has,
accordingly, retained the provisions of Section 706(b) of the present
Act (706 (c) under the bill) whereby the Commission will defer to ap-
propriate State agencies cases where the State or local agency can
grant the complainant relief similar to that which he can obtain with
the Commission under the provisions of this bill.
The present Section 702 of Title VII exempts educational institu-
tion employees connected with educational activities from the equal
employment requirements. The bill removes this exemption (Section 3
of the bill).
There is nothing in the legislative background of Title VII, nor does
any national policy suggest itself to support the exemption of these ed-
ucational institution employees-primarily teachers-:from Title VII
coverage. Discrimination against minorities and women in the field of
education is as pervasive as discrimination in any other area of em-
ployment. In the field of higher education, the fact that black scholars
have been generally relegated to all-black institutions, or have been
restricted to lesser academic positions when they have been permitted
entry into white institutions is common knowledge. Similarly, in the
area of sex discrimination, women have long been invited to par-
ticipate as students in the academic process, but without the prospect
of gaining employment as serious scholars.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
When they have been hired into educational institutions, particu-
larly in institutions of higher education, women have been relegated
to positions of lesser standing than their male counterparts. In a study
conducted by Theodore Kaplow and Reece J. McGee, it was found
that the primary factors determining the hiring of male faculty
members were prestige and compatabihty, but that women were gen-
erally considered to be outside of the prestige system altogether.c
The committee feels that discrimination in educational institutions
is especially critical. The committee can not imagine a more sensitive
area than educational institutions where the Nation's youth are exposed
to a multitude of ideas that will strongly influence their fuure de-
velopment. To permit discrimination here would, more than in any
other area, tend to promote misconceptions leading to future patterns
of discrimination. Accordingly, the committee feels that educational
institutions, like other employers in the Nation, should report their
activities to the Commission and should be subject to the provisions of
the Act.
EMPLOYERS AND LABOR UNIONS WITH EIGHT OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR
MEMBERS
The bill amends section 701 of the Act, by changing the jurisdic-
tional reach of Title VII to include all employers and labor unions
with eight or more employees or members, effective one year after
enactment (section 2 of the bill). The present coverage is 25 or more
employees or members.
The committee feels that discrimination in employment is contrary
to the national policy and equally invidious whether practiced by small
or large employers. Because of the existing limitation in the bill pro-
scribino' the coverage of Title VII to 25 or more employees or mem-
bers, a large segment of the Nation's work force is excluded from an
effective Federal remedy to redress employment discrimination. For
the reasons already stated in earlier sections of this report, the com-
mittee feels that the Commission's remedial power should also be avail-
able to all segments of the work force. With the amendment proposed
by the bill, Federal equal employment protection will be assured to
virtually every segment of the Nation's work force.
Section 8 of the bill amends subsection 703 (h) of the Act and per-
fects the Title VII provisions dealing with testing and apprentice-
ship training. Tests, while they are a useful and necessary selection
device for management purposes, often operate unreasonably and un-
necessarily to the disadvantage of minority individuals. General in-
telligence tests commonly used by employers as selection devices for
hiring and promotion deprive minority group members of equal em-
ployment opportunities.? Culturally disadvantaged groups-groups
a See generally, Kaplow and McGee, The Academic Marketplace, Anchor Edition (Garden
City : 1965).
7 See e.g., M. Culhane, "Testing the Disadvantaged " The Journal of Social Issues
(April, 1965) ; D. Goslin, The Search for Ability: StanAartzed Testing on Social Perspec-
tive, (New York : Russell Sage Foundation (1963)) ; R. Krug, "The Problem of Cultural
Bias in Selection," Selecting and Training Negroes for Management Positions, Princeton :
Educational Testing Service (1965).
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : ?1A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
which because of low incomes, substandard housing, poor education,,
and other "atypical" environmental experiences-perform less well on
these types of tests on the average than do applicants from middle
class environments. The net result is that members from culturally
disadvantaged groups are screened out of employment and training
programs merely because of their failure to score well on such tests.
Such tests are often irrelevant to the ob to be performed by the
individual being tested and uncritical reliance on test results may not
aid management decisions and selection of personnel, but will screen
out the disadvantaged minority individual.
In a report issued in 1970, Personnel Testing and Employment Op-
portunity, the Commission describes the ways in which employment
tests can discriminate against minority groups. An aptitude test that
fails to predict job performance in the same way for both minorities
and whites, or fails to predict job performance at all is an invalid
test. If such a test is weighted to differentiate between blacks and
whites, it is similarly discriminatory. Tests may discriminate in the
social sense if they deny equal opportunity for consideration. A test
which tends to discriminate generally operates in the following man-
ner: (a) when scores on it tend to differentiate between identifiable
sub-groups where sub-grouping itself is not a relevant factor, and
either (b) scores for the lower group underpredict performance on
the job when the standards of the upper group are applied, or (c)
scores on the test do not predict job performance of either group.
The Supreme Court recently examined the problem of employment
testing and its relationship to employment discrimination in its deci-
sion in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., U.S. , 91 S. Ct. 849
(1971). In its decision, the court held that employment tests, even
if valid on their face and applied in a non-discriminatory manner,
were invalid if they tended to discriminate against minorities and the
company could not show an overriding reason why such tests were
necessary. At page 5 of its opinion, the Court stated :
The objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII
is plain from the language of the statute. It was to achieve
equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers
that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group
of white employees over other employees. Under the Act,
practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even
neutral in terms of intent cannot be maintained if they oper-
ate to "freeze" the status quo of prior discriminatory
practices.
The Court stated further, on page 6 of its opinion, that :
Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for em-
ployment or promotion may not provide equality of oppor-
tunity only in the sense of the fabled offer of milk for the
stork and the fox. On the contrary, Congress has now re-
quired that the posture and condition of the job seeker be
taken into account . . . . The Act proscribes not only overt
discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but
discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business neces-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2282: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
sity. If an employment practice which excludes Negroes can-
not be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is
prohibited.
The provisions of the bill are fully in accord with the decision of
the Court and with the testing guidelines established by the Commis-
sion. The addition of the requirement for a bona fide occupational
qualification which is reasonably necessary to perform the normal
duties of the position to which it is applied requires that employers,
who use employment tests as determinants for qualifications of em-
ployees for a particular job, must determine whether the test is neces-
sary for the particular position to which it is applied. Even after such
determination, if the use of the test acts to maintain existing or past
discriminatory imbalances in the job, or tends to discriminate against
applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,
the employer must show an overriding business necessity to justify
use of the test.
Section 8 perfects Title VII's provisions with respect to testing and
apprenticeship training. With regard to testing, the amendment is
limited to tests for particular positions; it is not intended to apply to
tests given to ascertain potential ability to undertake apprenticeship
or other learning capacities. Of course, tests given for apprenticeship
and related status must satisfy the requirement that the test, its ad-
ministration or action upon. the results, is not designed, intended, used,
or have the effect of discriminating because of race, color, religion, sex
or national origin.
The bill adds a new section 717 (section 11 of the bill) which, in
paragraphs (a) and (b), gives the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission the authority to enforce the obligations of equal employ-
ment opportunity in Federal employment.
The Federal service is an area where equal employment opportunity
is of paramount significance. Americans rely upon the maxim, gov-
ernment of the people," and traditionally measure the quality of their
democracy by the opportunity they have to participate in govern-
mental processes. It is therefore imperative that equal opportunity
be the touchstone of the Federal system.
The prohibition against discrimination by the Federal Govern-
ment, based upon the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the
Constitution, was judicially recognized long before the enactment of
the Civil Rights Act of 1.964.11 And Congress itself has specifically
provided that it is "the policy of the United States to insure equal
employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimina-
tion because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...." (5
U.S.C. ? 7151 (Sapp. IT 1965,1966) ).
The primary responsibility for implementing this stated national
policy has rested with the Civil Service Commission, pursuant to Ex-
ecutive Order 11246 (1.964) as clarified by Executive Order 11748.
In his memorandum accompanying Executive Order 11478, Presi-
dent Nixon stated that "discrimination of any kind based on factors
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2823CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
not relevant to job performance must be eradicated completely from
Federal employment." Accordingly there can exist no justification for
anything but a vigorous effort to accord Federal employees the same
rights and impartial treatment which the law seeks to afford employees
in the private sector.
Despite some progress that has been made in this area, the record
is far from satisfactory. Statistical evidence shows that minorities
and women continue to be excluded from large numbers of government
jobs, particularly at the higher grade levels. According to statistics
released by the Civil Service Commission, as of May 31, 1970, minor-
ities accounted for 19.4 percent of the total number of government em-
ployees and 14.4 percent of general schedule employees. An examina-
tion of the distribution of employees within the various levels of the
Federal system shows that the majority of these employees are at the
lower levels of government employment. Approximately 80% of the
minority employees on the general schedule are in grades 1 through S.
In grades GS-1 through 4 minorities account for 27.3 percent of all
employees, and in grades GS-5 through 8 they represent 17.2 percent
of all employees. On the other end of the scale, in grades GS-14
through 15, minorities represent only 3.3 percent of all employees, and
at grades GS-16 through 18 minorities account for 2.0 percent of all
employees. These figures represent little improvement over the statis-
tics from the previous study done by the Civil Service Commission in
November, 1969. In fact comparison of the two sets of figures shows
no perceptible change in the proportion of minorities in the Federal
service during the 6 month period. Although minority representation
in positions above GS-14 has increased slightly the minority concen-
tration in the lower level positions (GS-1-4) has also increased by
.6% from 26.7%.
The figures for Spanish-surnamed employees reflect a similar pat-
tern. For example, according to the 1970 statistics, only 2.9% of the
Federal employees were Spanish-surnamed (this was an increase from
2.8% in November, 1969). Only .63% of the government executives
(GS-14-18) were Spanish-surnamed. Over 72% of the Spanish-sur-
named employees on the General Schedule were in positions of GS-8
and below.
Moreover, figures show different levels of minority representation
within the different agencies. For example, although 15% of Federal
employees are Negro, only 5.2% of the Department of Interior's em-
ployees are Negro and 2.9% of NASA's employees are Negro. Ac-
cording to 1967 figures, fewer than 550 of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration's air traffic controllers out of a total of over 20,000 were
minority. Only 13 out of the Administration's 1,612 supervisory and
administrative personnel (GS-14 to 18) were Negro.
This disproportionatte distribution of minorities and women
throughout the Federal bureaucracy and their exclusion from higher
level policy-making and supervisory positions indicates the govern-
ment's failure to pursue its policy of equal opportunity.
A critical defect of the Federal equal employment program has
been the failure of the complaint process. That process has impeded
rather than advanced the goal of the elimination of discrimination in
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 IA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
Federal employment. The defect, which existed under the old com-
plaint procedure, was not corrected by the new complaint process. The
new procedure, intended to provide for the informal resolution of
complaints, has, in practice, denied employees adequate opportunity
for impartial investigation and resolution of complaints.
Under the revised procedure, effective July 1, 1969, the agency is
still responsible for investigating and judging itself. Although the
procedure provides for the appointment of a hearing examiner from
an outside agency, the examiner does not have the authority to conduct
an independent, investigation. Further, the conclusions and findings of
the examiner are in the nature of recommendations to the agency head
who makes the final agency determination as to whether discrimina-
tion exists. Although the complaint procedure provides for an appeal
to the Board of Appeals and Review in the Civil Service Commission,
the record shows that the Board rarely reverses the agency decision.
The system, which permits the Civil Service Commission to sit in
judgment over its own practices and procedures which themselves may
raise questions of systemic discrimination, creates a built-in conflict-
of-interest.
Testimony reflected a general lack of confidence in the effectiveness
of the complaint procedure on the part of Federal employees. Com-
plainants were skeptical of the Civil Service Commission's record in
obtaining just resolutions of complaints and adequate remedies. This
has discouraged persons from filing complaints with the Commission
for fear that it will. only result in antagonizing their supervisors and
impairing any hope of future advancement.
Aside from the inherent structural defects the Civil Service Com-
mission has been plagued by a general lack of expertise in recognizing
and isolating the various forms of discrimination which exist in the
system. The revised directives to Federal agencies which the Civil
Service Commission has issued are inadequate to meet the challenge of
eliminating systemic discrimination. The Civil Service Commission
seems to assume that employment discrimination is primarily a problem
of malicious intent on the part of individuals. It apparently has not
recognized that the general rules and procedures it has promulgated
may actually operate to the disadvantage of minorities and women
in systemic fashion. All too frequently policies established at the policy
level of the Civil Service Commission do not penetrate to lower admin-
istrative levels. The result is little or no action in areas where unlawful
practices are most pronounced. Civil Service selection and promotion
requirements are replete with artificial selection and promotion re-
quirements that place a premium on "paper" credentials which fre-
quently prove of questionable value as a means of predicting actual job
performance. The problem is further aggravated by the agency's use of
general ability tests which are not aimed at any direct relationship to
specific jobs. The inevitable consequence of this, as demonstrated by
similar practices in the private sector, and, found unlawful by the
Supreme Court, is that classes of persons who are culturally or educa-
tionally disadvantaged are subjected to a heavier burden in seeking
employment.
To correct this entrenched discrimination in the Federal service, it
is necessary to insure the effective application of uniform, fair and
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : ?A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
strongly enforced policies. The present law and the proposed statute
do not permit industry and labor organizations to be the judges of
their own conduct in the area of employment discrimination. There is
no reason why government agencies should not be treated similarly.
Indeed, the government itself should set the example by permitting its
conduct to be reviewed by an impartial tribunal. Because the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission is the expert agency in the
field of employment discrimination and because it is an independent
agency removed from the administration of Federal employment, it
is the most logical place for the enforcement power to be vested.
Despite the series of executive and administrative directives on equal
employment opportunity, Federal employees, unlike those in the pri-
vate sector to whom Title VII is applicable, face legal obstacles in
obtaining meaningful remedies. There is serious doubt that court re-
view is available to the aggrieved Federal employee. Monetary restitu-
tion or back pay is not attainable. In promotion situations, a critical
area of discrimination, the promotion is often no longer available.
Information and documents contained in Government files are not
obtainable since the Freedom of Information Act exempts internal
personnel rules. Under the proposed law, court review, back pay, pro-
motions, reinstatement, and appropriate affirmative relief is available
to employees in the private sector; also the Commission has broad
powers to conduct an intensive investigation and obtain access to all
pertinent records.
The Commission is established as a government administrative
agency to protect employees against discrimination. This agency under
the proposed law assumes the burden and expense of litigation to obtain
adequate redress for the employee. These substantial benefits and pro-
tections are not presently available to the Federal employee. Presently
the Federal employee is entirely dependent on his own resources and
does not have recourse to an impartial governmental agency with
developed expertise.
The transfer of the civil rights enforcement function from the
Civil Service Commission to the Equal Employment Opportunity
commission does not preclude the Civil Service Commission from
maintaining its internal equal employment programs. Consistent with
Federal law it is expected that the Civil Service Commission and the
Federal agencies will continue their commitment to affirmative meas-
ures such as recruiting and training, specialized hiring programs,
the training of compliance personnel and supervisory Federal per-
sonnel in equal employment, and the appointment of EEO officers.
In all these cases, the primary responsibility shall rest with the Civil
Service Commission and the other Federal agencies. The Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Commission will work closely with these
agencies to aid the development and maintenance of programs which
will best serve the needs for equal employment in the government.
It is expected that the expertise of the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunities Commission will be utilized to review existing programs, to
evaluate new systems which will be established, and to issue guide-
lines and standards where appropriate. The Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission will be authorized by the statute to hear com-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/A: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
plaints of discrimination in Federal employment and establish ap-
propriate procedures for an impartial adjudication of the complaints.
An employee of a Federal agency may have recourse to a civil
action, as provided in section 715 (discussed infra), if he is not satis-
fied with the disposition of his complaint.
Section 1
This section contains the enacting clause and style of the Act.
Section 2, Jurisdiction
Section 701 (a) . ---This subsection defines "person" to include State
and local governments, governmental agencies and political
subdivisions.
Section 701(b) .-This subsection would extend coverage of em-
ployers to those with eight or more employees at the end of the first
year. This subsection would broaden the meaning of "employer" to
include State and local. governments and the District of Columbia
departments or agencies (except those subject by statute to procedures
of the Federal competitive service as defined in 5 USC 2102).
Section 701(c) .-This subsection eliminates the exemption for
agencies of the States or of political subdivisions of States from the
definition of "employment agency" in order to conform with the
expanded coverage of State and local governments in section 701 (a)
and (b).
Section 701 (e).- --This subsection is revised to include coverage of
labor organizations with eight or more members after the first year.
Section 701(h) .-This subsection is revised to include "any govern-
mental industry, business, or activity" in the definition of "industry
affecting commerce."
Section 3. Educational Institutions
Section 702.-Comparable to present Section 702. The exemption
currently provided to certain employees (primarily teachers) of educa-
tional institutions is deleted.
Section 4. Employment
Section 706(a).---New Section. The Commission is empowered to
prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful employment prac-
tice as set forth in Sections 703 or 704.
Section 706 (b) .-Comparable to present Section 706 (a). The require-
ment that aggrieved person's charges be made under oath is deleted.
Charges shall contain such information as the Commission requires.
Charges may also be filed on behalf of persons aggrieved. The Com-
mission shall mako its finding as to reasonable cause as promptly as
possible, and so far as is practicable, not later than 120 days from the
filing of the chargr, or when deferral is applicable under subsection
(c) or (d), from the date on which the Commission is authorized to
take action with respect to the charge. If reasonable cause is not found,
the Commission shall dismiss the charge, giving prompt notification
to the parties. The conciliation and confidentiality provisions are
retained.
Section 706(c).---Comparable to present Section 706 (b). Charges of
persons in FEPC States may be filed with the Commission, but the lat-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : EIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
ter may take no action until 60 days after commencement of proceed-
ings in the appropriate State or local agency (120 days if a new
agency). The latter proceeding shall be deemed to have commenced at
the time a written statement of the facts is sent to such agency by cer-
tified mail.
Section 706 (d).-Comparable to present Section 706 (c).
Section 706(e).-Comparable to present Section 706 (d). The 90 day
filing period is expanded to 180 days, and the 210 day period to 300
days (or 30 days after receiving notice of termination of proceedings,
whichever comes earlier). Provision is added requiring that a copy of
the charge be served on the respondent as soon as practicable after
fi ling.
Section 706(f).-Comparable to present Section 706(e). After at-
tempting to secure voluntary compliance under subsection (b), if the
Commission determines (which determination is not reviewable in
any court) that it is unable to secure from the respondent a concilia-
tion agreement acceptable to the Commission and the person aggrieved,
the Commission shall issue and cause to be served upon the respondent
a complaint stating the facts upon which the allegation of the unlaw-
ful employment practice is based, together with a notice of hearing
before the Commission, or a member or agent of it, at a specified place
not less than 5 days after service of the complaint and notice. Any
member of the Commission who filed a charge in any case shall not
participate in a hearing on any complaint arising out of such charge,
except as a witness.
Section 706(g).-New Section. Respondent has the right to file an
answer to the complaint and with the Commission's permission, may
amend his answer at any time if deemed reasonable. Respondent and
the person aggrieved shall be parties and may appear at any stage of
the proceedings with or without counsel. The Commission may grant
others the right to intervene or file briefs or make oral arguments as
amicus curiae, or for other purposes as it considers appropriate. All
testimony shall be taken under oath and shall be reduced to writing.
Section 706 (h.).-New Section. If the Commission finds that re-
spondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice, the Com-
mission shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be
served upon the respondent and aggrieved person an order requiring
the respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful employment
practice and take such affirmative action (including reinstatement or
hiring with or without back pay) as will effectuate the policies of the
Act. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence
operate to reduce the backpay otherwise allowable. Such order may
further require the respondent to make reports from time to time show-
ing the extent to which lie has complied with the order. If the Com-
mission finding is that no unlawful employment practice occurred, it
shall state its findings of fact and so notify the respondent and com-
plainant of an order dismissing the complaint.
Section 706(i).-New Section. After a charge has been filed and
until the record has been filed in court, the proceedings may at any
time be ended by agreement between the Commission and the parties
and the Commission may at any time, upon reasonable notice, modify
or set aside, in whole or in part-,, any order or finding issued or made by
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/1? : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
it. An agreement approved by the Commission shall be enforceable un-
der subsection (k).
Section 706(j).-New Section. Findings of fact or orders made or
issued under subsection (b) or (i) shall be determined on the record.
Section 706(k).-New Section. The Commission may petition any
U.S. Court of Appeals wherein whose circuit the unlawful employ-
ment practice occurred or wherein respondent resides or transacts busi-
ness, for enforcement of its order and for appropriate temporary
relief or restraining order. The Commission shall file in the court the
record of its proceedings as provided in section 2112 of title 28 of
the U.S. Code. Upon serving notice on the parties, the court shall have
jurisdiction and the power to grant such temporary relief, restrain-
ing order, or other order as it deems just and proper and enter upon
the record a decree enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified
or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Commission. No
objection that has not been urged before the Commission, its member,
or its agent shall be considered by the court except under extraordinary
circumstances. The findings of the Commission with respect to ques
tions of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on
the record considered as a whole. The court may order additional evi-
dence to be taken by the Commission, which may then modify its fact
findings. Upon the filing of the record with it, the jurisdiction of the
court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree final, subject only
to review by the Supreme Court.
Section 706(l).-New Section. Any party aggrieved by a final order
of the Commission may obtain review of such order in any U.S. Court
of Appeals in the circuit wherein the unlawful employment practice
was alleged to have been engaged in or wherein such person resides or
transacts business, or in the D.C. Court of Appeals. Upon receiving
a copy of such petition, the Commission shall file in the court the
record of its proceedings, and the court shall then proceed in the same
manner as in the case of a petition by the Commission under subsec-
tion (k). Commencement of proceedings under this subsection or sub-
section (k) shall not operate as a stay of the Commission's order.
Section 706(m).-New Section. The provisions of 29 U.S.C. 101-
115 with respect to preliminary injunctions are made inapplicable to
judicial proceedings under the Title.
Section 706 (n) .-New Section. The general counsel of the Com-
mission shall conduct all litigation affecting it, or to which it is a party,
except that the Attorney General shall conduct all litigation to which
the Commission is a party in the Supreme Court.
Section 706(o).-New Section. When after the filling of a charge,
the Commission concludes on the basis of a preliminary investigation
that prompt judicial action is necessary to preserve the power of the
Commission to grant effective relief, it may bring an action for appro-
priate temporary or preliminary relief in the district court for the
district where the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have
been committed, or in the district where the aggrieved person would
have been employed, or if the respondent cannot be found in these dis-
tricts, in the district where the respondent has his principal office. Upon
the bringing of such action, the district court may grant such injunc-
tive relief or temporary restraining order as it deems just and proper,
as governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2829CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
Section 5. Records Required To Be Kept and Investigations
Section 707(c).-New Section. Any record or paper required by sec-
tion 709 (c) shall be made available to the Commission on written
demand, for purposes of inspection and copying, but unless otherwise
ordered by a court of the United States, the Commission shall not dis-
close any information thus obtained except to Congress or any com-
mittee thereof, a governmental agency, or in the presentation of any
case or preceding before any court or grand jury. The appropriate dis-
trict court may compel the production of such records or papers.
Section 707(d).-Transfers the function of the Attorney General
with respect to patterns or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment
of the rights secured by Title VII, together with personnel, property,
records and funds, to the Commission.
Section 707(e).-Provides for continuation by the Commission of
pending proceedings brought by the Attorney General under Section
707.
Section 707 (f) .-Assimilates procedures for new proceedings
brought under Section 707 to those now provided for under Section
706 so that the Commission may provide an administrative procedure
to be the counterpart of the present Section 707 action.
Section G. State and Local Agencies, Recordkeeping
Section 709 (b).-Comparable to present Section 709 (b). The con-
tracts to State and local agencies language is enlarged to include Com-
mission contributions to research and other projects of mutual interest,
and payment to State and local agencies may be made in advance as
well as in reimbursement. The provisions concerning agreements
whereby no civil actions may be brought is omitted. The power of the
Commission to rescind any agreement no longer serving the interest
of effective enforcement is retained.
Section 709(c).-The Section 709(d) reporting exemption is de-
leted, and the hardship language is changed to require that persons
or organizations alleging hardship must exhaust the relief processes
provided by the Commission before applying for relief in the district
court.
Section 709 (d).-Deletes the present subsection, and in its place pro-
vides that the Commission shall consult with other interested State and
Federal agencies and shall endeavor to coordinate its requirements
with those of such other agencies. The Commission shall furnish in-
formation obtained pursuant to subsection (c) of this section without
cost to any State or local FEPC on request, except that public dis-
closure of such information provided on the part of such State or
local agency prior to the institution of a proceeding under State or
local law shall be grounds for declining to honor subsequent requests
pursuant to this subsection.
Section 7. Commission Investigations
Section 710.-Comparable to present Section 710. Incorporates the
provisions of section 11 of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. 161). The Commis-
sion shall have access to and the right to copy evidence of a person be-
ing investigated or proceeded against that relates to the matter under
investigation or in question. It shall issue subpenas to parties on ap-
plication requiring the presence and testimony of witnesses and the
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
30
production of evidence as specified in such application. Within 5 days
of service, the person served may petition the Commission to revoke
its subpena on grounds that the evidence sought is not relevant to the
matter in question. Attendance of witnesses and the production of evi-
dence may be required from any place in the United States or its pos-
sessions, and any Federal court with jurisdiction may enforce such
subpenas by order. Witnesses may not refuse to answer questions on
grounds of self incrimination, but may not be subsequently proceeded
against on the basis of information thus gained. Complaints, orders
and other processes may be served personally or by registered mail or
telegraph, or by leaving a copy at the principal office of the person to
be served. No subpena shall be issued to any party to a proceeding be-
fore the Commission until after the respondent has been served a copy
of the complaint and notice of hearing under section 706(f). Wit-
nesses and persons making depositions shall receive the same mileage
and fees as witnesses and persons making depositions in the district
courts.
Section 8. Selection Procedures, Apprenticeship Programs,
Commission Organization
Section 703(a) (2).-Comparable to present Section 703(a) (2).
Adds "or applicants for employment" after "employees."
Section 703(c) (0).-Comparable to present Section 703(c) (2).
Adds "or applicants for membership" after "membership."
Section 703(h).-Comparable to present Section 703(h). Retains
the seniority and merit system language, but changes the testing pro-
visions to stipulate that such tests must be directly related to the de-
termination of bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably neces-
sary to perform the normal duties of the particular position concerned.
The provision prohibiting tests designed or used to discriminate on the
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex is retained.
Section 704(a) and (b).-Comparable to present Section 704(a)
and (b). Adds `or joint labor-management committee controlling ap-
prenticeship or other training or. retraining, including on-the-job
training programs"; after "employment agency."
Section 705(a).-Comparable to present Section 705(a). Amends
the Section to include "members of the Commission shall. continue to
serve until their successors are appointed and qualified," provided that
no such member shall continue to serve for more than 60 days when the
Congress is in session unless a nomination to fill the vacancy has been
submitted to the Senate, or after the adjournment sine die of the
session of the Senate in which such nomination was submitted. The sec-
tion also adds "hearing examiners" to the appointments the Chairman
may make in accordance with title 5, U.S.C. on behalf of the Com-
mission, and provides that assignment, removal. and compensation of
such hearing examiners shall be in accordance with sections 3105,
3344, 5362, and 7 521 of title 5, U.S.C. Section 3105 provides for the ap-
pointment of the necessary number of hearing examiners, requires
that they be assigned to cases in rotation, and stipulates that they may
not be assigned duties that are inconsistent with their position as hear-
ing examiners. Section 3344 authorizes an agency's use of hearing
examiners from other agencies as selected by the Civil Service Com-
mission if the borrowing agency is short staffed. Section 5362 states
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
that such hearing examiners are entitled to the pay prescribed by the
Civil Service Commission for them independently of agency recom-
mendations or ratings, in accordance with subchapter III and chapter
51 of title 5, U.S.C. Section 7521 allows removal of hearing examiners
only for good cause established and determined by the Civil Service
Commission on the record after hearing.
Section 705(g) (1).-Comparable to present Section 705(g) (1).
Adds "and to accept voluntary and uncompensated services, notwith-
standing that provisions of section 3679(b) of the revised Statutes"
after the word "individuals."
Section 705(g) (6).-Comparable to present Section 706(g) (6).
Substitutes Section "715" for Section "706."
Section 713(c) and (d).-New subsections. Authorizes the Commis-
sion to delegate its powers with respect to investigating, conciliating,
hearing, determining, ordering, certifying, reporting, or otherwise
acting to such persons as the Commission may designate by regulation,
with certain exceptions. The exceptions concern the power to issue
cease and desist orders, the power to modify or set aside findings under
subsections (i) and (k) of Section 706, certain aspects of the rule-
making powers, and the power to enter into or rescind agreements
with State and local agencies as provided in subsection (b) of Section
709. The Commission is specifically not authorized to provide for per-
sons other than those referred to in section 556, subsection (b), clauses
(2) and (3) of title 5, U.S.C. to conduct any hearing to which that
section applies. New subsection (d) authorizes the Commission to
delegate to any group of three or more of its members any or all of
the powers which it may itself exercise.
Section 714.-Comparable to present Section 714. Adds section 1114
of title 18, U.S.C. (murder of Commission employees).
Section 715.-New Section, comparable in part to present Section
706. Deletes the provisions of the present Section 715, which called for
a 1965 study of discrimination because of age, provides that if the
Commission dismisses a charge after a preliminary investigation indi-
cates no cause, or on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, or if after 180
days from the filing of a charge the Commission has not made a find-
ing of no reasonable cause or entered into a conciliation agreement
acceptable to the Commission and to the person aggrieved, the Com-
mission shall notify the aggrieved party, and within 60 days of such
notification such party may bring a civil action against the respondent
named in the charge. The court may upon application appoint an
attorney for such complainant, and may dispense with the payment
of fees, costs, or security. It may also permit the Commission to inter-
vene if it certifies that the cause is of general public importance. Upon
the commencement of such action the Commission is divested of juris-
diction over the proceeding and may take no further action, except
that the court may in its discretion stay further proceedings for not
longer than 60 days pending termination of State or local proceed-
ings, or the efforts of the Commission to obtain voluntary compliance.
Subsections (b) and (c) retain the procedural provisions of present
Section 706, subsections (f) and (g), while subsections (d), (e), and
(f) duplicate Section 706, subsections (i), (j) and (k), the latter sub-
section modified to delete the exceptions of the Commission and the
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/ : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
United States in regard to attorney's fees and to change the words
"prevailing party" to "prevailing plaintiff." Present subsection (h)
excepting such proceedings from the provisions of 29 U.S.C. 101-115
is retained with modified language at Section 706 (in).
Section 9. Commissioner's Compensation.
Title 5, U.S.C. Add "Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission" at the end of section 5314 (Level III Positions). Add
"Members, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" to clause
(72) of section 5315 (Level IV Positions). Repeal clause (III) of
section 5316 (the Level V slot presently occuped by Members of the
Commission).
Section 10. Pending Cases
Sections 706 and 710 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended
by this Act, shall not be applicable to charges filed with the Commis-
sion prior to the effective date of this Act.
Section 11. Federal Employees, Federal Contractors
Section 717 (a) and (b).-New Section. All personnel actions affect-
ing employees of applicants for employment in the competitive serv-
ice of the United States or in positions of the District of Columbia
Government covered by the Civil Service Retirement Act shall be
made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion,
sex or national origin.
] he Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall enforce
the nondiscrimination provisions of subsection (a), and shall issue
appropriate rules, regulations, orders, and instructions. The responsi-
bilities of the Civil Service Commission with regard to nondiscrimina-
tion in Federal employment are transferred to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. This, of course, will not relieve the Civil
Service Commission, the Federal agencies, or the District of Columbia,
of their affirmative responsibilities to assure equal opportunity in gov-
ernment employment, nor transfer any functions relating thereto (as
distinguished from enforcement functions).
Section 717 (c).--Persons aggrieved by the final disposition of com-
plaints may, within thirty days of receipt of notice, file a civil action
in the same manner as in Section 715, in which action the head of the
executive department or agency, or the District of Columbia, as appro-
priate, shall be the respondent.
Section 717 (f) .-With respect to employment discrimination by gov-
ernment contractors and subcontractors and federally assisted con-
struction contractors and subcontractors, this subsection, effectively,
transfers those functions of the Secretary of Labor, established pur-
suant to Executive Order 11246, to the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission. Under the provisions of this bill the Commission
is given the statutory responsibility to carry out all such authority,
functions, and responsibilities in order to enforce and implement the
substantive requirements.
Section 718.-New Section. Reiterates the individual obligation of
all Government agencies or officials to assure nondiscrimination in
employment.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : 9A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
Section l . Effective Date of Section1l
New Section 717, added by Section 11 of the Act shall become
effective six months after the effective date of the Act.
CHANGi S IN ExISTINU LAW MADE BY TILE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law
in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIr. RIGHTS ACT or, 1964
TITLE VII-EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
SEC. 701. For the purposes of this title-
(a) The term "person" includes one or more individuals, govern-
mnents, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions,
partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual
companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations,
trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
(b) The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry
affecting commerce who has [twenty-five] eight or more employees
for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the
current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person,
but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation
wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian
tribe or [a State or political subdivision thereof] the District of
Columbia, (2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor
organization) which is exempt from taxation under section 501 (e) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Provided, That during the first
year after the effective date prescribed in subsection (a) of section 716,
persons having fewer than one hundred employees (and their agents)
shall not be considered employers, and, during the second year after
such date, persons having fewer than seventy-five employees (and
their agents) shall not be considered employers, and, during the third
year after such date, persons having fewer than fifty employees (and
their agents) shall not be considered employers.
(c) The term "employment agency" means any person regularly
undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for
an employer or to procure for employees opportunities to work for
an employer and includes an agent of such a person; but shall not
include an. agency of the l Tn ited States, [or an agency of a State or
political subdivision of a State,] except that such term shall include
i. ie United States Employment Service and the system of State and
local employment services receiving Federal assistance.
(d) The. term "labor organization" means a labor organization
engaged in an industry affecting commerce, and any agent of such an
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
organization, and includes any organization of any kind, any agency,
or employee representation committee, group, association, or plan so
engaged in which employees participate and which exists for the
purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms
or conditions of emnployrnent, and any conference, general committee,
joint or system board, or joint council so engaged which is subordinate
to a national or international labor organization.
(e) A labor organization shall be deemed to be engaged in an indus-
try affecting commerce if (1) it maintains or operates a hiring hall
or hiring office which procures employees for an employer or pro-
cures for employees opportunities to work for an employer, or (2)
the number of its members (or, where it is a labor organization com-
posed of other labor organizations or their representatives, if the
aggregate number of the members of such other labor organization)
is (A) one hundred or more during the first year after the effective
(late prescribed in subsection (a) of section 716, (B) seventy-five or
more during the second year after such date or fifty or more during
the third year, or (C) {twenty-five] eight or more thereafter, and
such labor organization-
(1) is the certified representative of employees under the pro-
vision of the National Labor relations Act, as amended, or the
Railway Labor Act, as amended :
(2) although not certified, is a national or international labor
organization or a. local. labor organization recognized or acting as
the representative of employees of an employer or employers
engaged in an industry affecting commerce; or
(3) has chartered a local labor organization or subsidiary body
which is representing or actively seeking to represent employees
of employers within the meaning of paragraph (1) or (2) ; or
(4) has been chartered by a labor organization representing or
actively seeking to represent employees within the meaning of
paragraph (1) or (2) as the local or subordinate body through
which such employees may enjoy membership or become affiliated
with such labor organization ; or
(5) is a conference, general committee, joint or system board,
or joint council subordinate to a national or international labor
organization, which includes a labor organization engaged in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of any of the
preceding paragraphs of this subsection.
(f) The term "employee" means an individual employed by an
employer.
(g) The term "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce, trans-
portation, transmission, or communication among the several States;
or between a State and any place outside thereof; or within the
District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States; or between
points in the same State but through a point outside thereof.
(h) The term "industry affecting commerce" means any activity,
business, or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would
hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce and includes
any activity or industry "affecting commerce" within the meaning of
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/283.CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and
further includes any governmental industry, business, or activity.
(i) The term "State" includes a State of the United States, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, Wake Island, the Canal Zone, and Outer Continental Shelf
lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
SEC. 702. This title shall not apply to an employer with respect to
the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corpora-
tion, association, or society with respect to the employment of indi-
viduals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the
carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious
activities [or to an educational institution with respect to the employ-
ment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational
activities of such institution].
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL
ORIGIN
SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an -unlawful employment practice for an
employer-
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to de-
prive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such in-
dividual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employ-
ment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to
discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any in-
dividual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor or-
ganization-
(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise
to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin;
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants
for membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employ-
ment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to
deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would
limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect
his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, be-
cause of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin ; or
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
against an individual in violation of this section.
(d) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer,
labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling
apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job
training programs to discriminate against any individual because of
his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or
employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or
other training.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, (1) it shall
not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and
employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for
employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its
membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or
for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management com-
mittee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining pro-
grams to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the
basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in these certain instances
where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational quali-
fication reasonably necessary to the normal opeartion of that particular
business or enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment
practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institu-
tion or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a par-
ticular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part,
owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or
by a, particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the
curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation
of a particular religion.
(f) As used in this title, the phrase "unlawful employment prac-
tice" shall. not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by
an employer, labor organization, joint labor-management. committee,
or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member
of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other orga-
nization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-
front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control
Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not
be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse
to hire and employ any individual for any position, for an employer
to discharge any individual from any position, or for an employment
agency to fail or refuse to refer any individual for employment in
any position, or for a labor organization to fail or refuse to refer any
individual for employment in any position, if-
(1) the occupancy of such position, or access to the premises
in or upon whicli any part of the duties of such position is per-
formed or is to be performed, is subject to any requirement im-
posed in the interest of the national security of the United States
under any security program in effect pursuant to or administered
under any statute of the United States or any Executive. order of
the President ; and
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : 'CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
(2) such individual has not fulfilled or has ceased to fulfill
that requirement.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be
an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different
standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or
a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of produc-
tion or to employees who work in different locations, provided that
such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate
because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be
an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act
upon the results of any professionally developed ability test [pro-
vided that] which is directly related to the determination of bona fide
occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to perform the nor-
rnai duties of the particular position concerned: Provided, That such
test., its administration or action upon the results is not designed,
intended, or used to discriminate, because of race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin. It shall not be an unlawful employment practice
under this title for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of
sex in determining the amount, of the wages or compensation paid
or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is
authorized by the provisions of section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act of 1938, as amended(29 U.S.C. 206(d) ).
(i) Nothing contained in this title shall apply to any business or
enterprise on or near an Indian reservation with respect to any publicly
announced employment practice of such business or enterprise under
which a preferential treatment is given to any individual because he
is an Indian living on or near a reservation.
(j) Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require
any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-
management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treat-
ment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, reli-
gion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of
an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or per-
centage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by
any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to member-
ship or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or em-
ployed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in compari-
son with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color,
religion, sex, or national orio'in in any community, State, section, or
other area, or in the available work force in any community, State,
section, or other area.
Si:c. 704. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants
for employment, for an employment agency or joint labor-management
committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining,
including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any
individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/ : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
member thereof or applicant for membership, because he has opposed
any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this title, or
because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any
manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title.
(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer,
labor organization, [or employment agency] employment agency, or
joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other
training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to print
or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertise-
ment relating to employment by such an employer or membership in
or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor
organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employ-
ment by such an employment agency, or relating to admission to, or
employment in, any program, established to provide apprenticeship or
other training by such a joint lab or-management committee indicating
any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or
advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or
discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion,
sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for
employment.
SEC. 705. (a) There is hereby created a Commission to be known as
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which shall be com-
posed of five members, not more than three of whom shall be members
of the same political party, who shall be appointed by the President
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. One of the original
members shall be appointed for a terra of one year, one for a term of
two years, one for a term of three years, one for a term of four years,
and one for a term of five years, beginning from the date of enact-
ment of this title, but their successors shall be appointed for terms of
five years each, except that any individual chosen to fill a vacancy
shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the member whom
he shall succeed, and all members of the Commission shall continue to
serve until their successors are appointed and qualified : Provided, That
no such member of the Commission shall continue to serve (1) for more
than sixty days when the Congress is in session unless a nomination to
fell such vacancy shall have been submitted to the Senate, or (2) after
the adjournment sine die of the session of the Senate in which such
nomination was submitted. The President shall designate one member
to serve as Chairman of the Commission, and one member to serve as
Vice Chairman. The Chairman shall be responsible on behalf of the
Commission for the administrative operations of the Commission, and
shall appoint, in accordance with the [civil service laws, such officers,
agents, attorneys, and employees as it deems necessary to assist it in
the performance of its functions and to fix their compensation in
accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, as amended] provisions
of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competi-
tive service, such officers, agents, attorneys, hearing examiners, and
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : 6 A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
employees as he deems necessary to assist it in the performance of its
functions and to fix their compensation in accordance with the pro
visions of chapter 51 and subchapter III o f chapter 53 o f title 5, United
States Code, relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates:
Provided, That assigmnent, removal, and compensation of hearing ex
am. r8 shall be in accordnce with sections 310044, 5362, and 7521
of title 5, United States Code. The Vice Chairman shall act as Chair-
man in the absence or disability of the Chairman or in the event of a
vacancy in that office.
(b) A vacancy in the Commission shall not impair the right of the
remaining members to exercise all the powers of the Commission and
three members thereof shall constitute a quorum.
(c) The Commission shall have an official seal which shall be judi-
cially noticed.
(d) The Commission shall at the close of each fiscal year report to
the Congress and to the President concerning the action it has taken-,
the names, salaries, and duties of all individuals in its employ and the
moneys it has disbursed; and shall make such further reports on the
cause of and means of eliminating discrimination and such recom-
mendations for further legislation as may appear desirable.
(e) The Federal Executive Pay Act of 1956, as amended (5 U.S.C.
2201-2209), is further amended-
(1) by adding to section 105 thereof (5 U.S.C. 2204). the fol-
lowing clause :
"(32) Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion"; and
(2) by adding to clause (45) of section 106(a) thereof (5
U.S.C. 2205(a)) the following : "Equal Employment Opportun-
ity Commission (4)."
(f) The principal office. of the Commission shall be in or near the
District of Columbia, but it may meet or exercise any or all its powers
at any other place. The Commission may establish such regional or
State offices as it deems necessary to accomplish the purpose of this
title.
(g) The Commission shall have power-
(1) to cooperate with and, with their consent, utilize regional,
State, local, and other agencies, both public and private, and
individuals and to accept voluntary and uncompensated services,
notwithstanding the provisions of section 3679 (b) of the Revised
Statutes (31 U.S.C. 665(b) );
(2) to pay to witnesses whose depositions are taken or who are
summoned before the Commission or any of its agents the same
witness and mileage fees as are paid to witnesses in the courts
of the United States ;
(3) to furnish to persons subject to this title such technical
assistance as they may request to further their compliance with
this title or an order issued thereunder;
(4) upon the request of (i) any employer, whose employees
or some of them, or (ii) any labor organization, whose members
or some of them, refuse or threaten to refuse to cooperate in
effectuating the provisions of this title, to assist in such effectua-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
Lion by conciliation or such other remedial action as is provided
by this title ;
(5) to make such technical studies as are appropriate to
effectuate the purposes and policies of this title and to make the
results of such studies available to the public;
(6) to refer matters to the Attorney General with recommen-
dations for intervention in a civil action brought by an aggrieved
party under section [706] 715, or for the institution of a civil
action by the Attorney General under section 707, and to advise,
consult, and assist the Attorney General on such matters.
(h) Attorneys appointed under this section may, at the direction
of the Commission, appear for and represent the Commission in any
case in court.
(i) The Commission shall, in any of its educational or promotional
activities, cooperate with other departments and agencies in the per-
formance of such educational and promotional activities.
(j) All officers, agents, attorneys, and employees of the Commis-
sion shall be subject to the provisions of section 9 of the Act of August
2, 1939, as amended (the Hatch Act), notwithstanding any exemption
contained in such section.
[PREVENTION OF UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
[SEC. 706. (a) Whenever it is charged in writing under oath by a
person claiming to be aggrieved, or a written charge has been filed
by a member of the Commission where he has reasonable cause to
believe a violation of this title has occurred (and such charge sets
forth the facts upon which it is based) that an employer, employment
agency, or labor organization has engaged in an unlawful employment
practice, the Commission shall furnish such employer, employment
agency, or labor organization (hereinafter referred to as the "respond-
ent") with a copy of such charge and shall make an investigation of
such charge, provided that such charge shall not be made public by the
Commission. If the Commission shall determine, after such investi-
gation, that there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true,
the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful
employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation,
and persuasion. Nothing said or done during and as a part of such
endeavors may be made public by the Commission without the written
consent of the parties, or used as evidence in a subsequent proceeding.
Any officer or employee of the Commission, who shall make public
in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection
shall be deemed guilty of a misdeameanor and upon conviction thereof
shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one
year.
[(b) In the case of an alleged unlawful employment practice occur-
ring in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State
or local law prohibiting the unlawful employment practice alleged
and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or
seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings
with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no charge may be
filed under subsection (a) by the person aggrieved before the expira-
tion of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 44:IA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier termi-
nated, provided that such sixty-day period shall be extended to one
hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective
date of such State or local law. If any requirement for the com-
mencement of such proceedings is imposed by a State or local author-
ity other than a requirement of the filing of a written and signed
statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is based, the pro-
ceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced for the purposes of
this subjection at the time such statement is sent by registered mail
to the appropriate State or local authority.
[(c) In the case of any charge filed by a member of the Commission
alleging an unlawful employment practice occurring in a State or
political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law pro-
hibiting the practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State
or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to
institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving
notice thereof, the Commission shall, before taking any action with
respect to such charge, notify the appropriate State or local officials
and, upon request, afford them a reasonable time, but not less than
sixty days (provided that such sixty-day period shall be extended
to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effec-
tive day of such State or local law), unless a shorter period is
requested, to act under such State or local law to remedy the practice
alleged.
{ (d) A charge under subsection (a) shall be filed within ninety days
after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, except that
in the case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which
the person aggrieved has followed the procedure set out in subsection
(b), such charge shall be filed by the person aggrieved within two
hundred and ten days after the alleged unlawful employment practice
occurred, or within thirty days after receiving notice that the State
or local agency has terminated the proceedings under the State or
local law, whichever is earlier, and a copy of such charge shall be
filed by the Commission with the State or local agency.
[(e) If within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commis-
sion or within thirty days after expiration of any period of reference
under subsection (c) (except that in either case such period may be
extended to not more than sixty days upon a determination by the
Commission that further efforts to secure voluntary compliance are
warranted), the Commission has been unable to obtain voluntary
compliance with this title, the Commission shall so notify the person
aggrieved and a civil action may, within thirty days thereafter, be
brought against the respondent named in the charge (1) by the person
claiming to be aggrieved, or (2) if such change was filed by a member
of the Commission, by any person whom the charge alleges was
aggrieved by the alleged unlawful employment practice. Upon
application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court
may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such com-
plainant and may authorize the commencement of the action without
the payment of fees, costs, or security. Upon timely application, the
court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene
in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/212 CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
importance. Upon request, the court may, in its discretion, stay
further proceedings for not more than sixty days pending the termi
nation of State or local proceedings described in subsection (b) or the
efforts of the Commission to obtain voluntary compliance.
[(f) Each United States district court and each United States
court of a place subject to the jurisdiction of tl:ie United States shall
have jurisdiction of actions brought under this title. Such an action
may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the
unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in
the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such
practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in
which the plaintiff would have worked but for the alleged unlawful
employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within any
such district, such an action may be brought with in the judicial district
in which the respondent has his principal office. For purposes of sec-
tions 1404 and 1406 of title 28 of the United States Code, the judicial
district in which the respondent has his principal office shall in all
cases be considered a district in which the action might have been
brought.
((g) If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally en-
gaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment prac-
tice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent
from engaging in uch unlawful employment practice, and order such
affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include reinstate-
ment or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by the
employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may
be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice). Interim earn-
ings or amounts earnable with reasonable dilligence by the person or
persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay
otherwise allowvable. No order of the court shall require the admis-
sion or reinstatement of an individual as a member of a union or the
hiring, reinstatement, or promotion of an individual as an employee,
or the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was refused
admission, suspended, or expelled or was refused employment or ad-
vancement or was suspended or discharged for any reason other than
discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
or in violation of section 704 (a).
[(h) The provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to amend the
Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting
in. equity, and for other purposes," approved March 23,1932 (29 U.S.C.
101-115), shall not apply with respect to civil actions brought under
this section.
[(i) In any case in which an employer, employment agency, or
labor organization fails to comply with an order of a court issued in
a civil action brought under subsection (e), the Commission may com-
mence proceedings to compel compliance with such order.
E (j) Any civil action brought under subsection (e) and any pro-
ceedings brought under subsection (i) shall be subject to appeal as pro-
vided in sections 1`_'91 and 1292, title 28, United States Code.
[(k) In any action or proceeding under this title the court, in its
discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commis-
sion or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :4QIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
costs, and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for
costs the same as a private person.]
PREVENTION OF UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEc. 706. (a) The Commission is empowered, as hereinafter pro-
vided, to prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful employ-
ment practice as set forth in section 703 or 704 of this title.
(b) Whenever a charge is filed by or on behalf of a person claiming
to be aggrieved, or by a member of the Commission, alleging that an
employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-
management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training
or retraining, including on-the-job training programs has engaged in
an unlawful employment practice, the Commission shall serve a copy
of the charge on such employer, employment agency, labor organiza-
tion, or joint labor-management committee (hereinafter referred to
as the "respondent") and shall make an investigation thereof.
Charges shall be in writing and shall contain such information and
be in such form as the Commission requires. Charges shall not be
made public by the Commission. If the Commission determines after
such investigation that there is no reason to believe that the charge
is true, it shall dismiss the charge and promptly notify the person
claiming to be aggrieved and the respondent of its action. If the Com-
mission determines after such investigation that there is reasonable
cause to believe that the charge is true, the Commission shall endeavor
to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by in-
formal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Nothing
said or done during and as a part of such informal endeavors may
be made public by the Commission, its officers or employees, or used
as evidence in a subsequent proceeding without the written consent Of
the persons concerned. Any person who makes public information in
violation of this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both. The Commission shall
make its determination on reasonable cause as promptly as possible
and, so far as practicable, not later than one hundred and twenty days
from the filing of the charge or, where applicable under subsection
(e) or (d), from the date upon which the Commission is authorized
to take action with respect to the charge.
(c) In the case of a charge filed by or on behalf of a person claim-
ing to be aggrieved alleging an unlawful employment practice oc-
curring in a State, or political subdivision o f a State, which has a
State or local law prohibiting the unlawful employment practice al-
leged and establishing or authorizing a 'State or local authority to
grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal pro-
ceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, the Com-
mission shall take no action with respect to the investigation of such,
charge before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have
been commenced under the State or local law: Provided, That such
sixty day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days
during the first year after the effective date of such State or local
law. If any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is
apposed by a State or local authority other than a requirement of the
filing of d written and signed statement of the facts upon which the
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
proceeding is based, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been com-
menced for the purposes of this subsection at the time such statement
is sent by certified mail to the appropriate State or local authority.
(d) In the case of any charge filed by a member of the Commission
alleging an unlawful employment practice occurring in a State or
volatical subdivision of a State which has a State or local law prohib-
iting the practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or
local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to insti-
tute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice
thereof the Commission shall, before taking any action with respect to
such charge, notify the appropriate State or local officials and, upon
request, afford them a reasonable time, but not less than sixty days:
Provided, That such sixty-day period shall be extended to one hun
dred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of
such State or local law, unaless a shorter period is requested, to act
under such State or local law to remedy the practice alleged.
(e) A charge shall be filed within one hundred eighty days after the
alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and a copy shall be
served upon the person against whom such charge is made as soon as
practicable thereafter, except that in a case of an unlawful employ-
ment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially
instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to
grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal pro-
ceedings with respect thereto upon receivin notice thereof, such
charge shall be filed by the person aggrieved within three hundred
days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or with-
in thirty days after receiving notice that the State or local agency has
terminated the proceedings under the State or local law, whichever is
earlier, and a copy of such charge shall be filed by the Commission
with the State or local agency.
(f) If the Commission determines after attempting to secure volun-
tary compliance under subsection (b) that it is unable to secure from
the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission
and to the person aggrieved, which determination shall not be review-
able in any court the Commission shall issue and cause to be served
upon the respondent a complaint stating the facts upon which the
allegation of the unlawful employment practice is based, together with
a notice of hearing before the Commission, or a member or agent there-
of, at a place therein fixed not less than five days after the serving of
such complaint. Related proceedings may be consolidated for hearing.
Any member of the Commission who filed a charge in any case shall
not participate in a hearing on any complaint arising out of such
charge, except as a witness.
(V) A respondent shall have the right to file an answer to the com-
pla~ t against him and with the leave of the Commission, which shall
be granted whenever it is reasonable and fair to do so, may amend his
answer at any time. Respondents and the person aggrieved shall be
parties and may appear at any stage of the proceedings, with or with-
out counsel. Th.e Commission may grant such other persons a right
to intervene or to file briefs or make oral arguments as amicus curiae
or for other purposes, as it considers appropriate. All testimony shall
be taken under oath, and shall be reduced to writing.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :4IA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
(h) If the Commission finds that the respondent has engaged in an
unlawful employment practice, the Commission shall state its findings
of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on the respondent and
the person or persons aggrieved by such unlawful employment
practice an order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from
such unlawful employment practice and to take such affirmative ac-
tion, including reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without
backpay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor
organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful em-
ployment practice), as will effectuate the policies of this title : Pro-
vided, That interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable dili-
gence by the aggrieved person or persons shall operate to reduce the
backpay otherwise allowable. Such, order may further require such
respondent to make reports from time to time showing the extent to
which he has complied with the order. If the Commission finds that
the respondent has not engaged in any unlawful employment practice,
the Commission shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause
to be served on the respondent and the person or persons alleged in the
complaint to be aggrieved an order dismissing the complaint.
(i) After a charge has been filed and until the record has been filed
in court as hereinafter provided, the proceeding may at any time be
ended by agreement between the Commission and the parties for the
elimination of the alleged unlawful employment practice, approved
by the Commission, and the Commission may at any time, upon rea-
sonable notice, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or
order made or issued by it. An agreement approved by the Commis-
sion shall be enforceable under subsection (k) and the provisions of
that subsection shall be applicable to the extent appropriate to a pro-
ceeding to enforce an agreement.
(j) Findings of fact and orders made or issued under subsection (h)
or (i) of this section shall be determined on the record.
(k) The Commission may petition any United States court of ap-
peals within any circuit wherein the unlawful employment practice in
question occurred or wherein the respondent resides or transacts busi-
ness for the enforcement of its order and for appropriate temporary re-
lief or restraining order, and shall file in the court the record in the
proceedings as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code.
Upon such filing, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon
the parties to the proceeding before the Commission, and thereupon
shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and o f the question deter-
mined therein and shall have power to grant such temporary relief,
restraining order, or other order as it deems just and proper, and to
make and enter a decree enforcing, modifying and enforcing as so
modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Commis-
mission. No objection that has not been urged before the Commission,
its member, or agent, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure
or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraor-
dinary circumstances. The findings of the Commission with respect
to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole shall be conclusive. If any party shall apply to
the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and shall show to
the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/218: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such
evidence in the hearing before the Commission, its member, or its
agent, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before
the Commission, its member, or its agent, and to be made a part of the
record. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts, or
make new findings, by reason of additional evidence so taken and
filed, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which findings
with, respect to question of fact if supported by substantial evidence on
the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive, and its recom-
mendatons, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original
order. Upon the filing of the record with it the jurisdiction of the
court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final,
except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court
of the United States as provided in section 125. of title 28, United
States Code. Petitions filed under this subsection shall be heard
expeditiously.
(1) Any party aggrieved by a final order of the Commission granting
or denying, in whole or in part, the relief sought may obtain a review
of such order in any United States court of appeals in the circuit in
which the unlawful employment practice in question is alleged to have
occurred or in ?rhich such party resides or transacts business,
or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
by filing in such court a written petition praying that the order of the
Commission be modified or set aside. A copy'
opy of such petition shall be
f orthwith transmitted by the clerk of the Court to the Commission
(and to the other parties to the proceeding before the Commission) and
thereupon the Coin mission shall file in the court the certified record in
the proceeding as provided in. section 2112 of title 28, United States
Code. Upon the filing of such petition, the court shall proceed in the
same manner as in the case of an application by the Commission under
subsection (k), the findings of the Commission with respect to ques-
tions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record con-
sidered as a whole shall be concllusive, and the court shall have the
same jurisdiction to grant such temporary relief or restraining order
as it deems just Bind proper, and in like manner to make and enter
a decree enforcing. modifying, and enforcing as so m.odi fied, or setting
aside in whole or in part the order of the Commission. The coanmence-
ment of proceedings under this subsection or subsection (k) shall not,
unless ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the order of the
Commission.
(m) The provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to amend the Judi-
cial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in
equity, and for other purposes", approved March 23, 1932 (47 Stmt.
70 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 101-1.15), shall not apply with respect to (1)
proceedings under subsection (k), (1), or (o) of this section, (2) pi'o-
ceedings under section 707 of this title, or (3) proceedings under sec-
tion 715 of this title.
(n) The Attorney General slvdl conduct all litigation to which the
Commission is a party in the Supreme Court of the United States pur-
suant to this title. All other litigation affecting the Commission, or to
which it is a party, shall be conducted by the General Counsel of the
Commission.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28. 4CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
(o) Whenever a charge is filed with the Commission pursuant to sub-
section (b) and the Commission concludes on the basis of a preliminary
investigation that prompt judicial action is necessary to preserve the
power of the Commission to grant effective relief in the proceeding the
Commission may bring an action for appropriate temporary or
preliminary relief pending its final disposition of such charge, in the
United States district court for any judicial district in the State in
which the unlawful employment practice concerned is alleged to have
been committed, or the judicial district in which the aggrieved person
would have been employed but for the alleged unlawful employment
practice, but, if the respondent is not found within any such judicial
district, such an action may be brought in the judicial district in which
the respondent has his principal office. For purposes of sections 1404
and 1406 of title 28, United States Code, the judicial district in which
the respondent has his principal office shall in all cases be considered a
judicial district in which such an action might have been brought.
Upon the bringing o{ any such action, the district court shall have
jurisdiction to grant such injunctive relief or temporary restraining
order as it deems just and proper, notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law. Pule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except
paragraph (a) (2) thereof, shall govern' proceedings under this
subsection.
Suc. 707. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause
to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern
or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights
secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature
and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described,
the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate
district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint
(1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General),
(2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and
(3) requesting such relief, including an application for a permanent
or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the
person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems
necessary to insures the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.
(b) The district courts of the United States shall have and shall
exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this sec-
tion, and in any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with
the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be con-
vened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney
General shall be, accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the
case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and
request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such
clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding
circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt
of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or
the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate imme-
diately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a
circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court
in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such
case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the
case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every
way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will
lie to the Supreme Court.
In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any
such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district
(or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending
immediately to designate a fudge in such district to hear and deter-
mine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available
to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the
acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the
chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge)
who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to
hear and determine the case.
It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section
to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to
cause the case to be in every way expedited.
(c) Any record or paper required by section 709 (c) of this title to be
preserved or maintained shall be made available for inspection, repro-
duction, and copying by the Commission, the Attorney General, or his
representative, upon demand in writing directed to the person having
custody, possession, or control of such record or paper. Unless otherwise
ordered by a court, of the United States, neither the Commission, the
Attorney General, nor his representative shall disclose any record or
paper produced pursuant to this title, or any reproduction or copy,
except to Congress or any committee thereof, or to a governmental
agency, or in the presentation of any case or proceeding before any
court or grand jury. The United States district court for the district
in which a demand is made or in which a record or paper so demanded
is located, shall have jurisdiction to compel by appropriate process the
production of such, record or paper.
(d) Effective on the date of enactment of the Equal Employment
Opportunities Enforcement Act, the functions of the Attorney Gen-
eral and the Acting Attorney General, as the case may be, under this
section shall be transferred to the Commission, together with such
personnel, property records, and unexpended balances of appropria-
tions, allocations, and other funds, employed, used, held, available, or
to be made available in connection with the functions transferred to
the Commission hereby as may be necessary to enable the Commission
to carry out its functions pursuant to this subsection, and the Com-
mission shall the'eafter carry out such functions in the manner set
forth in subsections (e) and (f) of this section.
(e) In all suits commenced pursuant to this section prior to the date
of enactment of the Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement
Act of 1971, proceedings shall continue without abatement, all court
orders and decrees shall remain in effect, and the Commission shall be
substituted as a party for the United States of America or the Attor-
ney General or Acting Attorney General, as appropriate.
(f) Subsequent to the date of enactment of the Equal Employment
Opportunities Enforcement Act of 1971, the Commission shall have
authority to investigate and act, on a charge of a pattern or practice of
discrimination, whether filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to
be aggrieved or by a member of the Commission: Provided, That all
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 4t:IA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
such actions shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in
section 706, including the provisions for enforcement and appellate
review contained in subsections (k), (1), (m), and (n) thereof.
SEC. 708. Nothing in this title shall be deemed to exempt ,or relieve
any person from any liability, duty, penalty, or punishment provided
by any present or future law of any State or political subdivision
of a State, other than any such law which purports to require or
permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful employment
practice under this title.
INVESTIGATIONS, INSPECTIONS, RECORDS, STATE AGENCIES
SEC. 709. (a) In connection with any investigation of a charge filed
under section 706, the Commission or its designated representative
shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purposes of exam-
ination, and the right to copy any evidence of any person being investi-
gated or proceeded against that relates to unlawful employment
practices covered by this title and is relevant to the charge under
investigation.
(b) The Commission may cooperate with State and local agencies
charged with the administration of State fair employment practices
laws and, with the consent of such agencies, may, for the purpose of
carrying out its functions and duties under this title and within the
limitation of funds appropriated specifically for such purpose, engage
in and contribute to the cost of research and other projects of mutual
interest undertaken by such agencies, and utilize the services of such
agencies and their employees and, notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, may [reimburse] pay by advance or reimbursement such
agencies and their employees for services rendered to assist the Com-
mission in carrying out this title. In furtherance of such cooperative
efforts, the Commission may enter into written agreements with such
State or local agencies and such agreements may include provisions
under which the Commission shall refrain from processin a charge
in any cases or class of cases specified in such agreements nd under
which no person may bring a civil action under section 06 in any
cases or class of cases so specified,] or under which the Commission
shall relieve any person or class of persons in such State or locality
from requirements imposed under this section. The Commission shall
rescind any such agreement whenever it determines that the agree-
ment no longer serves the interest of effective enforcement of this title.
[(c) Except as provided in subsection (d), every employer, employ-
ment agency, and labor organization subject to this title shall (1)
make and keep such records relevant to the determinations of whether
unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, (2)
preserve such records for such periods, and (3) make such reports
therefrom, as the Commission shall prescribe by regulation or order,
after public hearing, as reasonable, necessary, or appropriate for the
enforcement of this title or the regulations or orders thereunder.
The Commission shall, by regulation, require each employer, labor
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2%?CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
organization, and joint labor-management committee subject to this
title which controls an apprenticeship or other training pro ;ram to
maintain such records as are reasonably necessary to carry out the
purpose of this title, including, but not limited to, a list of applicants
who wish to participate in such program, including the chronological
order in which such applications were received, and shall furnish to
the Commission, upon request, a detailed description of the manner in
which persons are selected to participate in the apprenticeship or
other training progra.m.Any employer, employment agency, labor
organization, or joint labor-management committee which believes
that the application to it of any regulation or order issued under this
section would result in undue hardship may (1) apply to the Com-
mission for an exemption from the application of such regulation or
order, or (2) bring a civil action in the United States district court
for the district where such records are kept. If the Commission or
the court, as the case may be, finds that the application of the regu-
lation or order to the employer, employment agency, or labor organi-
zation in question would impose an undue hardship, the Commission
or the court, as the case may be, may grant appropriate relief.]
(c) Every employer, employment agency, and labor organization
subject to this title shall (1) make and keep such. records relevant to the
determinations of whether unlawful employment practices have been
or are being committed, (2) preserve such records for such periods,
and (3) make such reports therefrom as the Commission shall pre-
scribe by regulation or order, after public hearing, as reasonable,
necessary, or appropriate for the enforcement of this title or the regu-
lation or orders thereunder. The Commission shall, by regulation, re-
quire each employer, labor organization, and jointt labor-management
committee subject to this title which controls an apprenticeship or
other training program to maintain such records as are reasonably
nnecessarm/ to carry out the purpose of this title, including, but not
limited to, a list of applicants who wish to participate in such pro-
gram, including the chronological order in which such applicants were
received, and to furnish to the Commission upon request, a detailed
description of the manner in which persons are selected to participate
in the apprenticeship or other training program. Any employer, em-
ployment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management com-
mittee which believes that the application to it of any regulation or
order issued under this section would result in undue hardship may
apply to the Commission for an exemption from the application of such
regulation or order, and, if such application for an exemption is denied,
bring a civil action in the United States district court for the district
where such records are kept. If the Commission or the court, as the
case may be, finds that the application of the regulation or order to the
employer, employm~ent agency, or labor organization in question would
impose an undue hardship, the Commission or the court, as the case
may be, may grant appropriate relief. If any person required to comply
with the provisions of this subsection fails or refuses to do so, the
United States district court for the district in which such person is
found, resides or transacts business, shall, upon application of the
Commission, have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requir-
ing him to comply.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
51
[(d) The provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to any em-
ployer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-
management committee with respect to matters occurring in any State
or political subdivision thereof which has a fair employment practice
law during any period in which such employer, employment agency,
labor organization, or joint labor-management committee is subject
to such law, except that the Commission may require such notations
on records which such employer, employment agency, labor organiza-
tion, or joint labor-management committee keeps or is required to
keep as are necessary because of differences in coverage or methods
of enforcement between the State or local law and the provisions of
this title. Where an employer is required by Executive Order 10925,
issued March 6, 1961, or by any other Executive order prescribing fair
employment practices for Government contractors and subcontractors,
or by rules or regulations issued thereunder, to file reports relating to
his employment practices with any Federal agency or committee, and
he is substantially in compliance with such requirements, the Commis-
sion shall not require him to file additional reports pursuant to sub-
section (c) of this section.]
(d) In prescribing requirements pursuant. to subsection (c) of this
section, the Cori is.sion shall consult with other interested State and
Federal agencies and shall endeavor to coordinate its requirements with
those adopted by such agencies. The Commission shall furnish, upon
request and without cost to any State or local agency charged with the
administration of a fair employment practice law, information ob-
tained pursuant to subsection (c) of this section from any employer,
employment agency, labor organisation, or joint labor-management
committee subject to the jurisdiction of such agency. Such information
shall be furnished on condition that it not be made public by the re-
cipient agency prior to the institution of a proceeding under State or
local law involving such information. If this condition is violated by
a recipient agency, the C, oms fission may decline to honor subsequent
requeksts pursuant to this subsection.
(e) It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the Commis-
sion to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained
by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section prior
to the institution of any proceeding under this title involving such
information. Any officer or employee of the Commission who shall
make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of
this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more
than one year.
[INVESTIGATORY POWERS
[SEC. 710. (a) For the purposes of any investigation of a charge
filed under the authority contained in section 706, the Commission
shall have authority to examine witnesses under oath and to require
the production of documentary evidence relevant or material to the
charge under investigation.
[ (b) If the respondent named in a charge filed under section 706
fails or refuses to comply with a demand of the Commission for per-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2852CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
mission to examine or to copy evidence in conformity with the pro-
visions of section 709(a), or if any person required to comply with
the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) fails or refuses to do so, or
if any person fails or refuses to comply with a demand by the Com-
mission to give testimony under oath, the United States district court
for the district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts
business, shall, upon application of the Commission, have jurisdiction
to. issue to such person an order requiring him to comply with the
provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) or to comply with the demand of
the Commission, but the attendance of a witness may not be required
outside the State where he is found, resides, or transacts business and
the production of evidence may not be required outside the State
where such evidence is kept.
[(c) Within twenty days after the service upon any person charged
under section 706 of a demand by the Commission for the production
of documentary evidence or for permission to examine or to copy
evidence in conformity with the provisions of section 709(a), such
person may file in the district court of the United States for the judi-
cial district in which he resides, is found, or transacts business, and
serve upon the Commission a petition for an order of such court modi-
fying or setting aside such demand. The time allowed for compliance
with the demand in whole or in part as deemed proper and ordered
by the court shall not run during the pendency of such petition in the
court. Such petition shall specify each ground upon which the peti-
tioner relies in seeking such relief, and may be based upon any failure
of such demand to comply with the provisions of this title or with the
limitations generally applicable to compulsory process or upon any
constitutional or other legal right or privilege of such person. No
objection which is not raised by such a petition may be urged in the
defense to proceeding initiated by the Commission under subsection
(b) for enforcement of such a demand unless such proceeding is com-
menced by the Commission prior to the expiration of the twenty-day
period, or unless the court determines that the defendant could not
reasonably have been aware of the availability of such ground of
objection.
[(d) In any proceeding brouI' ht by the Commission under sub-
section (b), except as provided subsection (c) of this section, the
defendant may petition the court for an order modifying or setting
aside the demand of the Commission.]
INVESTIGATORY POWERS
SEc. 710. For the purpose of all hearings and investigations con-
ducted by the Commission or its duly authorized agents or agencies,
section 11 of the National Labor Relations Act (49 Stat. 455; 29
U.S.C. 161) shall apply; Provided, That no subpena shall be issued
on the application of any party to proceedings before the Comimis-
sion until after the Commission has issued and caused to be served
upon the respondent a complaint and notice of hearing under sub-
section (f) of section 706.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28,5f IA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
SEC. 711. (a) Every employer, employment agency, and labor orga-
nization, as the case may be, shall post and keep posted in conspicuous
places upon its premises where notices to employees, applicants for
employment, and members are customarily posted a notice to be pre-
pared or approved by the Commission setting forth excerpts from or,
summaries of, the pertinent provisions of this title and information
pertinent to the filing of a complaint.
(b) A willful violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine
of not more than $100 for each separate offense.
SEC. 712. Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to repeal
or modify any Federal, State, territorial, or local law creating special
rights or preference for veterans.
SEC. 713. (a) The Commission shall have authority from time to
time to issue, amend, or rescind suitable procedural regulations to
carry out the provisions of this title. Regulations issued under this
section shall be in conformity with the standards and limitations of
the Administrative Procedure Act.
(b) In any action or proceeding based on any alleged unlawful
employment practice, no person shall be subject to any liability or
punishment for or on account of (1) the commission by such person
of an unlawful employment practice if he pleads and proves that the
act or omission complained of was in good faith, in conformity with,
and in reliance on any written interpretation or opinion of the Com-
mission, or (2) the failure of such person to publish and file any
information required by any provision of this title if he pleads and
proves that he failed to publish and file such information in good
faith, in conformity with the instructions of the Commission issued
under this title regarding the filing of such information. Such a
defense, if established, shall be a bar to the action or proceeding,
notwithstanding that (A) after such act or omission, such interpreta-
tion or opinion is modified or rescinded or is determined by judicial
authority to be invalid or of no legal effect, or (B) after publishing or
filing the description and annual reports, such publication or filing is
determined by judicial authority not to be in conformity with the
requirements of this title.
(c) Except for the powers granted to the Commission under sub-
section (h) of section 706, the power to modify or set aside its findings,
or make new findings, under subsections (i) and (k) of section 706,
the rulemaking power as defined in subchapter II of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code, with reference to general rule as distin-
guished from rules of specific applicability, and the power to enter into
or rescind agreements with State and local agencies, as provided in
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2$4: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
subsection (b) of section 709, under which the Commission agrees to
refrain from processing a charge in any cases or class of cases or under
which the Commission agrees to relieve any person or class of persons
in such State or locality from requirements imposed by section 709,
the Commission may delegate any of its functions, duties, and powers
to such person or persons as the Commission may designate by regula-
tion, including functions, duties, and powers with respect to, investi-
gating, conciliating, hearing, determining, ordering, certifying, re-
porting or otherwise acting as to any work, business, or matter: Pro-
vided, That nothing in this subsection authorizes the Commission to
provide for persons other than those referred to in clauses (2) and (3)
of subsection (b) of section 556 of title 5 of the United States Code
to conduct any hearing to which that section applies.
(d) The Commission is authorized to delegate to any group of three
or more members of the Commission any or all of the powers which
it may itself exercise.
FORCIBLY RESISTING TIIE COMMISSION OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES
SEC. 714. The provisions of [section 111] sections 111 and 1114 title
18, United States Code, shall apply to officers, agents, and employees
of the Commission in the performance of their official duties.
[svi cI 1,L S'I`ITDY BY SECRETARY OF LABOR
[SEC. 715. The Secretary of Labor shall make a full and complete
study of the factors which might tend to result in discrimination in
employment because of age and the consequences of such discrimi-
nation on the economy and individuals affected. The Secretary of
Labor shall make a report to the Congress not later than June 30,
1965, containing the results of such study and shall include in such
report such recommendations for legislation to prevent arbitrary dis-
crimination in employment because of age as he determines advis-
able.]
SEC. 715. (a) if (1) the Commission determines that there is no
reasonable cause to believe the charge is true and dismisses the charge
in accordance with section 706(b), (2) finds no probable jurisdiction
and dismisses the charge, or (3) within one hundred and eighty days
a f ter a charge is filed ovith the Commission, or within one hundred and
eighty days after expiration of any period of reference under section
706 (c) or (d), the Commission has not either (i) issued a complaint
in accordance with section 706(f), (ii) determined that there is not
reasonable cause to believe the charge is true and dismissed the charge
in accordance with section 706(b) or found no probable jurisdiction
and dismissed the charge, or (iii) entered into a conciliation agree-
ment acceptable to the Commission and to the person aggrieved in
accordance with section 706 (f)or an agreement with the parties in
accordance with section 706(i), the Commission shall so notify the
person aggrieved and within sixty days after the giving of such notice
a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the
charge (1) by the person claiming to be aggrieved, or (2) if such
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :561A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
charge was filed by a member of the Commission, by any person whom
the charge alleges was aggrieved by the alleged unlawful employment
practice. Upon application by the complaintant and in such circum-
stances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney
for such complaintant and may authorize the commencement of the
action without the payment of .fees, costs, or security. Upon timely
application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Commission
to intervene in such civil action if it certifies that the case is of gen-
eral public importance. Upon the commencement of such civil action,
the Commission shall be divested of jurisdiction over the proceeding
and shall take no further action with respect thereof . Provided, That,
upon request, the court may, in its discretion, stay further proceedings
for not more than sixty days pending termination of State or local
proceedings described in subsection (c) or (d) or the efforts of the
Commission to obtain voluntary compliance.
(b) Each United States district court and each United States court
of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
jurisdiction of actions brought under this section. Such an action may
be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful
employment practice is alleged to have been committeed, or in the
judicial district in which the plaintiff would have been employed but
for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent
is not found within any such district, such an action may be brought
within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal
office. For purposes of sections 1404 and 1406 of title,' 8 of the United
States Code, the jjudicial district in which the respondent has his prin-
cipal office shall in all cases be considered a district in which the action
might have been brought. Upon the bringing of any such action, the
district court shall have jurisdiction to grant such temporary or pre-
liminary relief as it deems just and proper.
(c) If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged
in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice
charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from
engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such
affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include rein-
statement or hiring of employees, with or without backpay (payable
by the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case
may be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice). Interim
earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person
or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the backpay
otherwise allowable. No order of the court shall require the admission
or reinstatement of an. individual as a member of a union or the hiring,
reinstatement, or promotion of an individual as an employee, or the
payment to him of any backpay, if such individual was refused admis-
sion, suspended, or expelled or was refused employment or advance-
ment or was suspended or discharged for any reason other than
discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
or in violation of section 704 (a).
(d) In any case in which an employer, employment agency, or labor
organization fails to comply with an order of a court issued in a civil
action brought under subsection (a), the Commission may commence
proceedings to compel compliance with such. order.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/ : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
(e) Any civil action brought under subsection (a) and any proceed-
ings brought under subsection (d) shall be subject to appeal as pro-
vided in sections 1291 and 1292, title 28, United States Code.
(f) In any action or proceeding under this section, the court, in its
discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's
fee as part of the costs.
SEC. 716. (a) This title shall become effective one year after the
date of its enactment.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), sections of this title other than
sections 703, 704, 706, and 707 shall become effective immediately.
(c) The President shall, as soon as feasible after the enactment of
this title, convene one or more conferences for the purpose of enabling
the leaders of groups whose members will be affected by this title to
become familiar with the rights afforded and obligations imposed by
its provisions, and for the purpose of making plans which will result
in the fair and effective administration of this title when all of its
provisions become effective. The President shall invite the participa-
tion in such conference or conferences of (1) the members of the
President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, (2) the
members of the Commission on Civil Rights, (3) representatives of
State and local agencies engaged in furthering equal employment
opportunity, (4) representatives of private agencies engaged in fur-
thering equal employment opportunity, and (5) representatives of
employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies who will be
subject to the title.
SEC. 717.1 (a) All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants
for employment ' the cotitive service (as defined in section 2102 of
title 5 of the Una e ~.tates Code) or employees or applicants for em-
ployment in positions with the District of Columbia government
covered by the Civil Service Retirement Act shall be made free from
any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(b) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall have
authority to enforce the provision of subsection (a) and shall issue such
rules, regulations, orders, and instructions as it deems necessary and
appropriate to carry out its responsibilities hereunder, and the head of
each executive department and agency and the appropriate officers of
the District of Columbia shall comply with such rules, regulations,
orders, and instructions: Provided, That such rules and regulations
shall provide that an employee or applicant for employment shall be
notified of any final action taken on any complaint filed by him
thereunder.
(c) Within thirty days of receipt of notice given unider subsection
(b) the employee or applicant for employment, if aggrieved by the
final disposition of his complaint, may file a civil action as provided
in section 715, in which civil action the head of the executive depart-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :521A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
ment or agency, or the District of Columbia, as appropriate, shall be
respondent.
(d) The provisions of section 715 shall govern civil actions brought
hereunder.
(e) All functions of the Civil Service Commission which the Di-
rector of the Bureau of the Budget determines relate to nondiscrimina-
tion in government employment are transferred to the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission.
(f) All authority, functions, and responsibilities vested in the
Secretary of Labor pursuant to Executive Order 11246 relating to
nondiscrimination in employment by Government contractors and
subcontractors and nondiscrimination in federally assisted costruction
contracts are transferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission, together with such personnel, property, records, and un-
expended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
employed, used, held, available or to be made available in connection
with the functions transferred to the Cornnnission hereby as may be
necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions pursuant
to this subsection, and the Commission s/,all hereafter carry out all
such authority, functions, and responsibilities pursuant to such order.
SEC. 718. Nothing contained in this Act shall relieve any government
agency or official of its or his primary responsibility to assure nondis-
crimination in employment as required by the Constitution, statutes,
and Executive orders.
5316. Positions at level V.
Level V of the Executive Schedule applies to the following positions,
for which the annual rate of basic pay is $36,000:
(111) Members, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(4).,
* * ? * * * *
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
MINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 1746
We all agree that, if equal employment opportunity for all Ameri-
cans is to become a reality, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission should be given enforcement powers. We are convinced,
however, that H.R. 1746 will not accomplish this goal, and thus we
must oppose it.
First and foremost, on the premise that anyone charged with violat-
ing the law is innocent until proven guilty, we believe that enforce-
ment of our laws can best be effectuated through our courts.
Additionally, we fear that, in view of the estimated 18-month to
two-year backlog that currently exists at the EEOC, the intent of
II.R. 1746 to expand the EEOC's jurisdiction will serve only to retard
and frustrate the purposes and objectives of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act.
Under the procedures of the Committee bill, upon receipt of a
charge, the Commission is required to investigate and to find reason-
able cause before issuing a formal complaint. In effect, this finding is a
presumption of the guilt of the defendant, which subtly shifts the
burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant. Thus, in practice,
if not by law, the defendant is faced with the burden of proving his
innocence.
During Committee sessions, we offered amendments to assure that
title VII of the Civil Rights Act would be enforced, and that enforce-
ment would be fair and impartial. Our amendments, which were re-
jected, would permit the EEOC attorneys, if they are unsuccessful in
their conciliation and if they found reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of the law has taken place, to seek enforcement in Federal
district courts.
I. THE MAJOR ISSUE
As indicated above, the most significant issue that separates the
majority of the committee from the minority is not whether the EEOC
should be given enforcement authority. Rather, the issue is: What pro-
cedures will insure the most effective enforcement of the substantive
provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
By providing the EEOC with authority to issue cease and desist and
other remedial orders, the Committee bill would transform this agency
into a quasi-judicial body very similar to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
In the next section we explain and justify our belief that the court
approach will be more effective and more expeditious than the admin-
istrative approach. We are compelled, however, to point out as well
that the authority provided in H.R. 1746 ignores and denies basic
American principles.
(58)
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 :551A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
Under our system of justice, a person charged with violating the
law is presumed innocent until proved guilty. In practical effect the
Committee bill creates a system that presumes persons charged with
certain law violations are guilty until proved innocent. We contend
that the EEOC has attained an image as an advocate of civil rights,
and properly so. For this very reason, we submit that it cannot be an
impartial arbiter of the law. An advocate, by nature, represents one
side of an issue. How can lie then be asked to apply the law without
'Prejudice?
The direct judicial approach offers greater advantages than the ad-
ministrative cease and desist approach. While both methods would
involve an adversary proceeding before a finder of fact, in the judicial
approach the original finder of fact would be the federal district court
judge as compared to a hearing officer who is a civil service employee,
under the administrative approach.
There are substantial reasons for supporting direct resort to the
courts. They include :
A. Timeliness of Relief and Remedy
Contrary to the proponents of the "cease and desist" approach, the
district court approach is clearly preferable because relief can be more
quickly granted. The pertinent yardstick is the amount of time an ag-
grieved person must wait before he is afforded relief. Empowering the
EEOC to bring court suits will greatly facilitate its ability to imple-
ment the law without delay and to bring effective relief to victims of
discrimination. If the EEOC prevails before the court, it is entitled
to an immediate injunction and other relief to bring about a rapid end
to the discriminatory practices. In many instances a relatively simple
proof would allow the EEOC to obtain a preliminary injunction pend-
ing a full trial of the case.
A. close examination of the time factors involved in processing
charges before the National Labor Relations Board (which was the
model for formulating the enforcement powers given to the EEOC by
the Committee bill) and the district courts conclusively establishes
that quicker relief can be achieved when the direct court approach is
utilized.
It is significant that the Special Subcommittee on Labor opened
hearings on May 6, 1971, on a bill (H.R. 7152) to expedite the proc-
esses of the National Labor Relations Board, and in the explanatory
sheet it distributed it discussed the delay incurred in the six stages of
the administrative process which culminated in a court enforced order
in. the Court of Appeals. The delay was summarized as follows :
In sum, it can easily take 21/2 years from the time a worker
walks into a regional Labor Board office with a charge that he
has been discharged illegally until the time a court of appeals
finally issues an order that he be reinstated to his job with
back pay.
Even the 21/2 year figure cited appears unduly optimistic in light of
recent testimony given before the Special Subcommittee on Labor on
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2891A-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
H.R. 7152, on May 12, 1971, by Frank W. McCulloch, former Chair-
man of the NLRB, about the length of delay between the issuance of
a Board decision and a court order. He stated :
In operation, the lack of such a provision [referring to a
self-enforcing provision] has resulted in the build-up of a
median time interval of 630 days in enforcement cases, as
previously rioted, from Board decision to a Court order which
for the first time applies the sanctions of the law to a non-
complying respondent.
When these time factors are added up, the 18-24 month backlog
currently existing at EEOC, the time needed for an administrative
proceeding and review by the Commission, plus the 630 day figure
currently required to get court enforcement (using the NLRB figure),
31/2 to 4 years would appear to be a more correct approximation of the
time involved in getting enforcement through the administrative cease
and desist approach.
In striking contrast, the 1970 Annual Report of the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts states that ten
months was the median time interval from issue to trial for non-jury
trials completed in United States District Courts in 1970. Even assum-
ing time for issuance of a decision such forum would clearly be quicker.
Moreover, the district courts located in those states which have most
of the charges of employment discrimination often have better time
records in case handling.
An examination of the Fourth Annual Report of the Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Commission, submitted on July 30, 1970, shows
that the top ten states in terms of the number of charges of employ-
ment discrimination recommended for investigation are: Texas (1232
charges), Louisiana (1007), Florida (1000), Alabama (734), Tennes-
see (672), California (546), Georgia (519), Pennsylvania (501), Illi-
nois (334) and New Jersey (306). As federal district courts in such
metropolitan areas as New York City and Philadelphia would obvi-
ously be much busier than those in less populolus areas, the case han-
dling time factor should therefore, be correlated with the areas where
most charges originate.
The median time interval in months for non-jury trials in such
states discloses the following :
Texas:
Northern District, 4 months, Dallas.
Eastern District, 5 months, Beaumont.
Southern District, 12 months, Houston.
Western District, 3 months, San Antonio.
Louisiana :
Eastern District, 13 months, New Orleans.
Western District, 13 months, Shreveport.
Florida :
Northern District, 8 months 1, Tallahassee.
Middle District, 12 months, Jacksonville.
Southern District, 9 months, Miami.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 OtIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
Alabama :
Northern District, 8 months, Birmingham.
Middle District, 3 months,' Montgomery.
Southern District, 11 months, Mobile.
Tennessee :
Eastern District, 4 months, Knoxville.
Middle District 2, Nashville.
Western District, 8 months, Memphis.
California :
Northern District, 23 months, San Francisco.
Eastern District, 21 months,' Sacramento.
Central District, 10 months, Los Angeles.
Southern District 3, San Diego.
Georgia :
Northern District, 4 months, Atlanta.
Middle District, 4 months, Macon.
Southern District, 1 month, Savannah.
Pennsylvania :
Eastern District, 36 months, Philadelphia.
Middle District, 21 months', Scranton.
Western District, 12 months, Pittsburgh.
Illinois :
Northern District, 11 months, Chicago.
Eastern District, 12 months' East St. Louis.
Southern District, 11 months 1, Peoria.
New Jersey :1 month, Newark.
Of the 29 district courts represented in the above statistics, 21 courts
had a median time of 12 months or less; 8 courts had median trial
completion times of 6 months or less.
In hearings last April before the House Committee on Appropria-
tions, discussing the EEOC budget request for FY 1971, Chairman
Brown noted that EEOC's backlog "now means an average delay of
18 months to 2 years before the Commission can complete action on
a complaint." How much longer would this interval be extended if at
the end thereof, the Commission then had to begin its administrative
proceedings followed by resort to the appellate courts? In his testi-
mony before the General Subcommittee on Labor recently, Chairman
Brown noted that "during the first seven and a half months of this
Fiscal Year, 14,644 charges were filed with the Commission, a number
greater than the number received in all of last Fiscal Year." (Em-
phasis supplied.) He also stated that as of February 20, 1971, the
backlog of charges pending before the Commission numbered 25,195.
The increased caseload and backlog of EEOC alone not only under-
mines but clearly refutes the contention that the administrative proc-
ess would bring quicker relief. Add to this backlog the increased work-
load that would be generated by the additional jurisdiction bestowed
on EEOC by the Committee bill (jurisdiction over state and local
I Jury and non-jury trials-total.
2 No figure given : only one jury trial reported completed in fiscal year 1970.
A No figure given : only one jury trial reported completed in fiscal year 1970.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2 CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
employees, transfer of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance to
EEOC, transfer of pattern and practice suits to EEOC from the
Justice Department, transfer of authority over discrimination among
federal employees to EEOC from the Civil Service Commission, Juris-
diction extended to employers with 8 employees as compared to the
present 25 employee limitation) conclusively establishes that claims
of quicker remedies through the administrative "cease and desist"
process are more fiction than fact.
Finally, we suggest that a further impediment to timely action is
presented by virtue of the fact that under the administrative approach
the decision to grant relief can be made only by the Commission. An
EEOC attorney in the field could investigate, and he could attempt
conciliation ; but there would be only one facility available to issue a
cease and desist order-the Commission in Washington. Through the
judicial approach, EEOC attorneys would have access to our 93 Fed-
eral district courts for enforcement.
It seems eminently more sensible to us to Proceed in a forum where
not only can preliminary relief be made available at the outset, but, if
circumstances warrant, further relief can be obtained as the case pro-
ceeds, with perananent relief embodied in a self-enforcing decree issu-
ing at the culmination of trial. Thus we will have avoided the multi-
plicity of opportunities for delay that are inherent in the cease-and-
desist approach, and aggrieved parties will have their remedy at the
earliest possible moment.
This alternative saves the best features of the independent, agency
approach-expertise and political autonomy-while avoiding the
problems that arise when an active enforcement stance must be accom-
modated within a structure that contemplates quasi-judicial neutrali-
ty. The problem title VII seeks to correct is not one susceptible to the
kind of policy balancing that is usual in the administration of law
regulati!hg utilities or other situations involving competing interests.
Racial discrimination does not occupy the status of an "interest" under
our system of law. It is a grave injustice which should be eliminated
in as quick and efficient a manner as possible.
B. Greater Prest%ge of Federal Judges
The appropriate forum to resolve civil rights questions, questions of
employment discrimination as well as such matters as public accom-
modations, school desegregation, fair housing, and voting rights, is a
court. Civil rights issues usually arouse strong emotions. United States
district court proceedings provide procedural safeguards; Federal
judges are well known in their areas and enjoy great respect; the
forum is convenient for the litigants and is impartial; the proceedings
are public, and the judge has power to resolve the problem and fashion
a complete remedy.
C. Evidentiary Matters
The district court approach has a great advantage over an adminis-
trative hearing procedure in securing the needed evidence. The Fed-
eral Rules of Civil Procedure, with respect to discovery, would greatly
facilitate the collection of evidence for trial. Under a cease-and-desist
approach, the rather cumbersome method of enforcing subpoenas se-
verely inhibits the acquisition of evidence for trial, making the hearing
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/286.3CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
very dependent upon the investigation. Experience has shown that
investigations, which are aimed simply at developing enough evidence
to find reasonable cause, fall short of providing adequate evidence for
obtaining a decision where the standard, as it is in the courts, is a pre-
ponderance of evidence on the record. Discovery procedures take less
time than administrative fact-gathering techniques, and the contempt
powers of the court operate to inhibit any intimidation of witnesses,
which is a rather difficult problem that is often real, but seldom
apparent.
II. DETRIMENTAL PROVISIONS AND CRITICAL OMISSIONS IN THE
COMMITTEE BILL
A. As elaborated or hereafter, we conclude that those provisions
in the Committee bill dealing with the transfer of the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance (OFCC), the extension of EEOC jurisdiction to
state and local employees, and the transfer of pattern and practice
suits from the Justice Department to the EEOC are detrimental to
the major objective of this bill, which is to provide an enforcement
power to effectuate appropriate and timely remedies for discrimina-
tory employment conditions.
1. Section 11 of the Committee bill would transfer the function of
the Office of Federal. Contract Compliance under Executive Order
11246 from the Department of Labor to the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission. We oppose this transfer because: OFCC has
made commendable progress in achieving the Executive Order's goal
of equal employment opportunity by government contractors; the
transfer would create a hiatus in the administration of these crucial
programs and add an insurmountable administrative burden to an
already overburdened agency; and the administration of the pro-
grams will prove unworkable because the EEOC would be assuming
a dual role of contract compliance and the regulatory function of
processing complaints of employment discrimination.
OFCC is charged with the administration of the nondiscrimination
and affirmative action provisions of the Executive Order which re-
late to Federal contractors and Federally-assisted construction con-
tractors. We feel that this function falls logically within the Depart-
ment of Labor. The present location of OFCC permits it to benefit
directly from the experience gained by the Labor Department in the
administration of other workplace standards and anti-discrimination
programs which are enforced by similar sanctions as well as its gen-
eral expertise in labor-management relations. The Department also
includes the Manpower Administration, thus making it possible for
OFCC to include job training efficiently in the development of useful
affirmative action programs.
While OFCC and EEOC share the goal of promoting the civil
rights of minority workers, the programs they are presently admin-
istering are considerably different. EEOC acts, following an indi
vidual complaint, to redress instances of actual job discrimination.
OFCC works with Government contractors to insure equal employ-
ment opportunity. The merging of these two distinct functions in a
single agency will create serious problems, and such combination will
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2834 CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
undoubtedly work to the detriment of both programs. Incidentally, it
should be pointed out, that once EEOC is given enforcement powers,
federal contractors will be, just as other employers, subject to the
processes and remedies of the EEOC in addition to those exercised
by OFCC.
The EEOC presently has a tremendous backlog of pending charges.
The addition of some form of enforcement powers will greatly in-
crease its administrative responsibilities. We feel that it is simply un-
realistic to expect EEOC simultaneously to shoulder the burden of
OFCC's program.. If the Committee's bill is enacted, we foresee a
significant disruption of the compliance program. Regarding such
transfer Chairman Brown of the EEOC appeared before the General
Subcommittee on Labor and stated :
Given the tremendous backlog of charges pending now
with the Commission-25,195 as of February 20, 1911-the
additioanl work which would have to be undertaken by the
Commission if it gets, enforcement powers, the difficulty of
obtaining adequate funding for the Commission, and finally,
the tremendous administrative difficulties embodied in such
a transfer, I Lm doubtful as to the desirability of transferring
OFCC at this time. Specifically, the administrative difficul-
ties are by far the greatest in my view; almost insurmount-
able.
The primary responsibility for the implementation of the Execu-
tive Order as it relates to government procurement rests and must
remain, with the individual Executive agencies. The coordination of
the goals of equal employment opportunity with the needs of these
agencies to obtain goods and services can be most effectively accom-
plished from within the Executive Branch of Government. Indeed,
the experience of the various Presidential Committees formerly
charmed with the compliance program indicates the inherent difficul-
ties in placing the operations of the agencies under the control of a
separate body, such as the EEOC.
2. The Extension of Coverage to State and Local Employees. Apart
from adding to the EEOC's already swollen workload which is treated
in more detail in other portions of this report, we believe this area
helps substantiate our earlier conclusion that the Federal courts are
the proper forum. If its jurisdiction is thus extended, we will have the
anpmaly of a federal administrative agency interposing itself in the
internal administration of state and local government. The NLRB
does not have such jurisdiction over employees of state and local
governments in matters involving discrimination in employment and
we see no justification for extending such jurisdiction to the EEOC.
It would be inconsistent with our system of division of governmental
powers to subject state and local authorities to the cease-and-desist
power of a federal commission.
3. Transfer of Pattern and Practice Suits to EEOC. WVe oppose the
provisions of the Committee bill which would transfer from the De-
partment of Justice to the EEOC the authority to try pattern and
practice suits because it involves not only the transfer of authority
from one agency to another, but also the elimination of the judicial
remedies now provided by Section 707 of the Civil Rights Act. It will
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/286~PIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
unquestionably hinder the achievement of equal employment oppor-
tunity. In effect, the Committee bill, will merely delay the achievement
of any remedy to groups of discriminatees by interposing yet another
obstacle, the additional forum of the EEOC, which after reaching its
conclusion in such matters, under its hearing and cease and desist
procedures, must ultimately petition a Federal Circuit Court of Ap-
peals for enforcement. Certainly, it is in this area, that suits are fre-
quently initiated as class actions because of the numbers of employees
involved and the amounts of backpay due, which will usually require
the authority of a Court enforced decree.
Between July, 1965, when title VII took effect and April 2, 1971, the
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice filed some 60 suits
on the basis of Section 707. The Division has had a high degree of
success in litigating these cases, and principles established in them, at
the trial or appellate level, have been useful to complaining private
litigants and to other federal agencies. Six Circuit Courts have rend-
ered decisions favorable to the Division's position and to date the
Division has prevailed in each pattern and practice suit that has come
to final decision. Such a record warrants a retention of pattern and
practice suits in the Department of Justice. Some of the reasons for
its success are the fact that it has access to the investigative resources
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation-resources which have proved
invaluable in ascertaining the facts and marshaling them for evidence
in pattern or practice suits. Moreover, the United States Attorneys,
who are the Department's field representatives located in every judicial
district in the nation, have a thorough knowledge of local situations
and are in a position to render valuable counsel and assistance.
4. Recovery of Court Costs Limited to "Prevailing Plaintiff." Under
existing law, the Court has the discretion to allow the "prevailing
party" a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs for litigation
proceeding under this title. The Committee bill eliminated the term
"prevailing party" and substitutes the term "prevailing plaintiff". No
justification for such change was presented in hearings on the bill; it
is contrary to the rule in most jurisdictions; and it may constitute an
incentive for harassment suits and a "disincentive" to respondents not
to resist ill-founded claims.
B. Critical Omissions of the Committee Bill. At the subcommittee
and committee levels, we attempted to amend the Committee bill be-
cause it lacked certain procedural and due process safeguards. These
deficiencies include : failure to provide for a reasonable statute of limi-
tations on backpay; failure to provide for service of a charge on the
named respondent within a reasonable time; failure to provide that
title VII, as amended, shall be the exclusive remedy. We believe these
omissions are critical and should be called to the attention of the House
for we expect to make further attempts on the House floor to provide
minimal due process standards in the Committee bill.
1. Statute of Limitations. Under the Committee bill, the time period
in which individual charges of employment discrimination must be
filed has been extended from 90 days to 180 days from the date of the
alleged discriminatory conduct; this is identical to the statute of limi-
tations under the National Labor Relations Act. We concur in such
extension. However, testimony in the hearings indicates that pattern
or practice suits now brought by the Justice Department are not sub-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/2866CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
ject to such limitation. Civil suits in most jurisdiction are subject to
statutes of limitations ranging usually between two or three years.
Under existing law, recovery of backpay in such pattern or practice
suits can extend back to 1965, the effective date of enactment of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus potential respondents whether they be
employers, labor organizations or employment agencies may be subject
to enormous monetary penalties in the absence of a definite limitation.
To avoid the litigation of stale charges and to preclude respondents
from being subject to indefinite liabilities, it is clear that a precise
statute of limitations is needed. In view of the tremendous backlog cur-
rently existing at the EEOC, and the failure to require a prompt serv-
ing of the charge on named respondents as discussed hereafter, equi-
table principles require a limitation on liability.
Our amendment, which failed by a tie vote, inserted language which
provided that no order shall include backpay or liability which ac-
crued more than two years prior to the filing of a charge with the
Commission. In view of the equitable principles on which such amend-
ment is based, it is deserving of bipartisan support.
2. Service of the Charge. At the hearings of this bill, it was brought
out that in most cases, employers were not notified about the filing of a
charge until months later, not uncommonly a year or more. As the
Committee bill failed to remedy this problem, we sought to amend
it to require service on the named respondent within 5 days after the
filing of a charge. In the discussion that ensued it was emphasized that
the 5 day figure was not a magic number and that any reasonable time
period would be acceptable. Nevertheless, the Committee rejected the
5 day requirement and no reasonable alternative was offered.
It seems patent that failure to require timely notice violates all con-
cepts of due process. Under the National Labor Relations Act, a charge
is not deemed effectively filed for purposes of the 6 months statute of
limitation until service of a copy of the charge on the respondent. In
view of specific abuses regarding service of charges under title VII.
a specific requirement for service on the respondent within a specified
time period (5 to 7 days) is a prerequisite to maintaining minimum
standards of due process.
3. Failure to Make Title VII an Exclusive Federal Remedy. De-
spite the enactment of title VII of the Civil Rights Act, charges of
discriminatory employment conditions may still be brought under
prior existing federal statutes such as the National Labor Relations
Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In view of the comprehensive
prohibitions against discrimination contained in title VII, and the
intent of the Committee bill to consolidate procedures and remedies
under one agency, it would be consistent to make title VII the exclu-
sive remedy. No public interest is served in continuing to permit a
multiplicity of statutes or forums to deal with discrimination in em-
ployment. However, our attempt to amend the Committee bill to make
title VII an exclusive remedy (except for pattern or practice suits)
was rejected. In our view, the failure to make this an exclusive remedy
merely encourages an individual who has lost his case in one forum
under one statute to relitigate his case in still another forum under
another federal statute. Under NLRB procedures and the proposed
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/286ZIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
EEOC procedures, the burden as well as the cost of prosecuting
charges is borne by the respective agencies, and therefore, the
taxpayer.
CONCLUSIONS
In essence, the Committee bill will result in interposing an additional
obstacle in the nature of an administrative forum, between the ag-
grieved party and the effective judicial relief which can be achieved
by a court enforced order. For the reasons previously documented,
direct judicial relief can be obtained more quickly and thus more ef-
fectively through the federal district courts.
Secondly, and equally as important, the massive expansion of juris-
diction and the transferring of various programs to the EEOC at a
time when the agency is struggling to control a burgeoning backlog
of cases, will further hamstring efforts to bring meaningful and timely
relief to persons aggrieved by discriminatory employment conditions.
At a time when Congress should be directing its efforts solely to help-
ing the EEOC become-a more effective agency by giving it access to
jund dicial enforcement, the committee bill represents a step backward
a will thrust the EEOC into an administrative quagmire which can
only delay the attainment of a reasonable standard of operational
efficiency that Congress should expect and demand.
Lastly, the failure of the committee bill to include such minimal due
process requirements as the prompt notification to named respondents,
a reasonable statute of limitations as to backpay and other liability,
and failure to make this an exclusive remedy, are critical omissions
whose inclusion we deem vital to meet due process standards.
ALBERT II. QUIE.
JOHN N. ERLENBORN.
JOHN DELLENBACK.
MARVIN L. Escii.
EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN.
WILLIAM A. STEIGER.
ORVAL HANSEN.
EARL B. RUTH.
EDWIN B. FORSYTIIE,.
VICTOR V. VEYSEY.
JACK F. ICEMP.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
SEPARATE VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE GREEN
OF OREGON
I should like to dissent to one provision in the bill.
The new setcion 717(f), in connection with the transfer of the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance to the EEOC, provides that
all authority, functions and responsibilities vested in the Secretary
of Labor pursuant to Executive Order 11246 relating to nondiscrimi-
nation in employment by government contractors and subcontractors
and nondiscrimination in federally assisted construction contracts are
transferred to the EEOC ... and the Commissioner shall hereafter
carry out all such authority, functions, and responsibilities pursuant
to such order.
The EEOC will operate under two authorities-Executive Order
11246 as adopted by subsection (f), and Congressional enactments
amended title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Those authorities are di-
vergent in important ways. For example :
(1) Under title VII an individual may sue the offending party
after his complaint has been with the EEOC for 60 days.
Under the Executive Order an individual may not sue but may
seek debarment of the contract.
(2) Under title VII, EEOC can initiate an investigation only
after the filing of a discrimination complaint. The company is
entitled to judicial review if it should feel that the investigation
is unwarranted.
Under the Executive Order contract review can be conducted at
will. A decision to investigate is not subject to judicial review.
(3) Under Title VII EEOC is specifically prohibited from
public disclosure of a complaint.
Under the Executive Order there is authority to publish the
names of persons accused of discrimination.
(4) Under title VII (Sec. 703(j)) EEOC is expressly pro-
hibited from imposing racial quota requirements.
Under the Executive Order there is authority to require an
affirmative action plan including the imposition of racial quotas.
In my view, the Philadelphia plan is such a quota plan.
These contradictions place the EEOC in the intolerable situation
of being compelled to select between contradictory expressions of
Congressional intent. It is unreasonable to ask the EEOC to decide
which intention we really mean.
I am particularly concerned that the EEOC may decide that it can,
under the Executive Order authority, impose racial quotas which it
is forbidden to do under direct Congressional statute. Such artificial
quotas, unrelated to competence, are a distortion of civil rights and
a disservice to our working people. Personal rights are individual
rights, and the imposition of quotas infringes on them.
In our committee consideration of the bill, I offered an amendment
for the single purpose of removing the contradiction. It would have
made the present authority of title VII of the Civil Rights Act take
precedence in any conflict situation. The EEOC deserves such
guidance.
EDITH GRFFN.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE MAZZOLI
I favor equal employment opportunity for all Americans and sup-
port all realistic legislative measures directed toward this goal. How-
ever, because of significant provisions contained in, and omitted from,
the Committee version of H.R. 1746, I cannot support this legislation
in the form in which it has been reported. It requires major amend-
ment in order to become, in my opinion, realistic and appropriate
legislation to end job discrimination.
My objections to II.R. 1746 conform generally to the objections
raised in the Minority Views printed in this Report.
Basically, I prefer the stability, expedition and protection to plain-
tiff and defendant alike offered by judicial enforcement of equal em-
ployment rights over the administrative cease and desist approach
contained in H.R. 1746.
I also prefer that a choice of remedies be incorporated into this leg-
islation. A multiplicity of remedies and of forums, except in pattern
and practice suits, is inconsistent with the intent of this legislation
which is to consolidate and coordinate all efforts to eliminate discrimi-
nation in employment.
There ought also, in my opinion, to be a two-year statute of limita-
tions incorporated into H.R. 1746. I concur with the Minority Views
on this matter as set forth elsewhere in this Report.
Likewise, I concur in the conclusion and the reasoning of the mi-
nority in opposing the shift of the Office of Federal Contract Compli-
ance to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. '
On these groups and on others, most of which are discussed in the
Minority Views printed in this Report, I cannot support the Com-
mittee version of H.R. 1746, and will support amendments or sub-
stitutes thereto.
ROMANO L. Mazzoni.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES JOHN
M. ASI IBROOK AND EARL F. LANDGREBE
We generally agree with the views expressed in the Minority report.
However, we do not conclude as they do that the EEOC should be
given enforcement authority.
JoriN M. Asn mzooic.
EARL F. LANDGREBE.
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE REID OF
NEW YORK
Since 1965, I have authored, supported, and fought for legislation
to strengthen the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by
giving it cease and desist powers. In 1965, such a bill passed the House
and in 1970 a similar measure was approved by the Senate. I very
much hope that in 1971 both houses of the Congress will agree that
the right to equal employment opportunity is dependent upon a strong
EEOC with judicially enforceable cease and desist powers.
The Commission's powers under present law are limited to concilia-
tion and it is apparent that this authority is grossly inadequate to ob-
tain meaningful action in the cases before it. Reasonable cause has
been found in 63 percent of the 27,000 cases brought before the EEOC
and recommended for investigation between 1965 and 1970. But in
only less than half of these cases was the Commission able to achieve
a totally or even partially successful conciliation.
Based on my experience as Chairman of the New York State Com-
mission for Human Rights in 1961 and 1962, I deeply believe that only
cease and desist powers will give the EEOC the strength it needs to be
effective. Redress through the courts, instead of cease and desist pow-
ers, will not be as effective, will not be as expeditious, and will not
result in prompt equal employment opportunity for all Americans.
H.R. 1746 also expands the jurisdiction of EEOC to cover state and
local government employees and to cover employers and labor unions
with 8 or more employees or members instead of the present 25, and
transfers equal employment functions of the Civil Service Commis-
sion to the EEOC. These amendments fill a critical need and they will
make the protection of a strong Federal law available to government
workers in almost 20 states which lack meaningful legislation in this
field.
Transfers of authority to the EEOC from the Civil Service Com-
mission, the Department of Labor (in the case of Federal contract
compliance) and the Department of Justice (in the case of pattern or
practice discrimination. suits) will centralize the equal employment
functions of the Federal government. Hopefully, this will result in a
more vigorous pursuit of these rights than now is the case by certain
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Approved For Release 2001/08/11: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
of these agencies. In particular, adequate staff and resources must be
provided to the EEOC to handle its increased responsibilities. Other-
wise, these transfers of authority will have the effect of reduced, rather
than strengthened, compliance. This is especially important with re-
gard to the transfer of Federal Contract Compliance pursuant to
Executive Order 11246 from the Department of Labor to EEOC.
Equal employment opportunity legislation with effective enforce-
ment is now the law in over 30 states. Support for this bill is nation-
wide among educational, religious, civic, labor, and civil rights groups.
I know of no black, Spanish-American, Chicano, American Indian, or
women's organization that does not totally support cease and desist
powers. Indeed, the most persistent opposition to cease and desist
comes from those who do not really want the Federal government to
enforce effectively the right of all Americans to equal employment
opportunity now.
The plain hard fact of the matter is that we should have enacted this
bill in 1965, instead of wasting six years conjuring up legal niceties to
evade our constitutional responsibilities. To delay still longer the
enactment of cease and desist powers for the EEOC would be a grave
dereliction of duty by the Congress. To dilute this legislation by the
substitution of authority weaker and less effective than cease and
desist would be a callous and empty gesture and a cynical failure to
ful.fil.l a right due all Americans regardless of color or sex.
Finally, I hope that the Rules Committee, unlike its past perform-
ance, will grant a rule for H.R. 1746 promptly so that Members will
have a chance to debate and vote on the bill. Amendments will doubt-
less be offered on the Floor to weaken this legislation, and I hope that
all Members will join in defeating them. Justice demands nothing less.
OGDEN R. REID.
O
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400100002-5
 Appr
FIB -
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL SECRET
25X1A OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
1
OL~
2
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks : tt 1 '
X14 k-u
t`r a.. ` %A-c NyA tL~.M W~~ a
Mtr
JL 14.^ 41 't 441, \11A 1019 4-LA
/W
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NO. DATE
18 t o 1
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL SECRET
q o e
Appr
1-67