This report highlights the significant accomplishments achieved by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during fiscal years (FYs) 1999, 2000, and 2001. During this period, the EEOC implemented an innovative agenda to increase the fairness, quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of all aspects of Agency operations. These years were marked by an integrated approach, dubbed the Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP), to the work performed by the Commission. The CEP provided a framework wherein all the Agency's activities were strategically linked to increase collaboration among outreach, investigative, and legal staff in all phases of the Commission's work. This approach was instituted to bring improvements in customer service delivery and efficiencies in operation.

To ensure its status as the nation's premier civil rights enforcement agency, the Commission has focused on expanding outreach, education, and technical assistance to a broad range of stakeholders. The EEOC seeks to prevent discrimination in the first instance while pursuing fair and vigorous enforcement against those who violate federal workplace anti-discrimination laws. The Agency has placed special emphasis on outreach to small businesses and under-served communities to promote understanding and voluntary compliance with the laws enforced by the Commission.

This report is structured to reflect highlights and accomplishments covered in FYs 1999 through 2001. Selected statistics, litigation highlights, policy guidance, and outreach activities have been included to underscore progress by the Agency under its CEP. More detailed statistical information is included in Appendix A.

The composition of the Commission included the following presidential appointees between FY 1999 and FY 2001:

Cari M. Dominguez was sworn in as Chair of the EEOC on August 6, 2001, for a five-year term expiring on July 1, 2006. Dominguez was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2001, and was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 19, 2001. As Chair, she serves as the chief executive officer of the five-member Commission. Just before coming to the EEOC, Dominguez served as a principal of Dominguez & Associates, a Maryland-based consulting firm which she established in 1999 to focus on senior management recruitment, diversity evaluations, and work force preparedness assessments. Previously, she held senior positions at two international executive search firms, Heidrick & Struggles in Washington, D.C. and Spencer Stuart in San Francisco. As EEOC Chair, Dominguez continues a distinguished career in the federal government, having served during the administration of President George H.W. Bush in the U.S. Department of Labor as Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards and as Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. In the latter capacity, she launched and led the Labor Department's "Glass Ceiling Initiative," designed to remove barriers in the workplace affecting the advancement of individuals on the basis of race or gender.
Ida L. Castro served as Chairwoman from October 1998 to August 2001. Castro was nominated by President Clinton on April 2, 1998, and was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 21, 1998. The first Latina to serve in this capacity, Castro had been Acting Director of the Women's Bureau (1996 to 1998), as well as Deputy Assistant Secretary and Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (1994 to 1996) at the U.S. Department of Labor. Prior to entering public service, she worked as a labor and employment lawyer. She also was the first Hispanic woman to earn tenure as an Associate Professor at Rutgers University's Institute for Management and Labor Relations.
Paul M. Igasaki was confirmed for a second term as Vice Chair on October 21, 1998. Initially, he was nominated for a first term by President Clinton on April 19, 1994, and was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 29, 1994. He served as Acting Chairman of the Commission between January and October 1998. Igasaki is the first Asian American to serve in these positions at EEOC. Prior to his first appointment to the Commission, he was Executive Director of the Asian Law Caucus and the Washington representative of the Japanese American Citizens League. He was also the first Director of the Chicago Commission on Asian American Affairs.
Paul Steven Miller began his third term as a Commissioner on November 22, 1999. He initially was nominated by President Clinton on May 18,1994, and was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 29, 1994. He formerly served as Deputy Director of the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs and was the White House liaison to the disability community. In addition, he was Director of Litigation of the Western Law Center for Disability Rights and an Adjunct Professor at Loyola Law School.
Reginald E. Jones was sworn in as a Commissioner in July 1996. Jones was nominated to the Commission by President Clinton on June 5, 1996, and unanimously confirmed by the U. S. Senate on July 17, 1996. Before coming to the Commission, Jones worked as Senior Legislative Counsel to Senator James Jeffords (R-VT). He also served as Minority Counsel and Staff Director for a Senate Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee and worked on the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Prior to working on Capitol Hill, Jones was a labor and employment law practitioner and an associate and partner in the law firm of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather, and Geraldson. Jones resigned from the Commission on October 13, 2000.
Clifford Gregory Stewart was sworn in as General Counsel on July 5, 1995. Nominated by President Clinton in January 1995, he was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 30, 1995. Stewart previously served as Director of the Division on Civil Rights in the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety. He was also Assistant Deputy Public Advocate in the Division of Public Interest Advocacy of the New Jersey Department of Public Advocate and a staff attorney at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, D.C. Stewart resigned from the Commission effective May 2001.

For listings of all current and previous EEOC Commissioners and General Counsels, please see Appendices B and C.

Special mention must be made of the loss the EEOC suffered on September 11, 2001, when the Commission's New York District Office at Seven World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorist attacks. Thankfully, all district office personnel, along with other residents of the building, were safely evacuated before the structure collapsed. The office and all of its equipment, files, and records were demolished, necessitating that the New York District Office seek alternative solutions to operate on a limited basis. Along with the entire nation, staff within the EEOC rallied to show their resolve by quickly resuming work and continuing to serve all who need the services of the Agency.

INTRODUCTION

A brief section on budget and resources, as well as on program accomplishments, is provided for the years covered by this report. An in-depth discussion describing the CEP focuses on the Agency's strategic approach to forge a comprehensive enforcement and customer service orientation to every segment of the Commission's work. Sections regarding private sector enforcement highlights; litigation; federal sector activities; and outreach, education, and technical assistance are presented to showcase the Agency's accomplishments in these critical mission-related areas. Finally, a section on EEOC policy guidance and rulemaking looks at selected activities undertaken from FY 1999 through FY 2001.

Budget and Resources

From FY 1999 through 2001, the Commission strategically invested its resources to advance services for employees and employers. The EEOC received funding of:

$279 million in FY 1999 - This historic $37 million increase enabled EEOC to launch several key initiatives such as the CEP, National Mediation Program, and Small Business Initiative. The EEOC maintained 2,593 full-time equivalent staff (FTE) during this fiscal year.
$281 million in FY 2000 ("level" funding) - This funding level reflects the net amount after an across-the-board rescission, which resulted in reductions to the Agency's operating budget. Although the FY 2000 goals set forth in the President's budget request were reduced accordingly, EEOC was able to capitalize on the progress made in FY 1999. The EEOC maintained 2,852 FTE during this fiscal year.
$303 million in FY 2001 - The increased funding was necessary to sustain the vital enforcement initiatives that were advanced in FY 1999, including the National Mediation Program. The EEOC maintained 2,704 FTE during this fiscal year.

Program Highlights

Highlights of EEOC's FY 1999-2001 accomplishments include:

Cutting the pending inventory of private sector charges to 32,481 by FY 2001 a 37.5% decrease from the FY 1998 level of 52,011.
Lowering the average charge processing time for private sector charges to 182 days by FY 2001 - a reduction of 128 days, or 41%, from the FY 1998 level of 310 days.
Increasing the number of successful resolutions handled through the National Mediation Program to 6,987 by FY 2001 a 44.6% increase from the 4,833 level of FY 1999, when the program became operational. More than $90 million in benefits were realized from mediation resolutions during FY 2001.
Obtaining record-breaking monetary benefits of $247.7 million in FY 2001 for victims of employment discrimination through the administrative enforcement process (pre-litigation) up from $245.6 million obtained in FY 2000 and $210.4 million obtained in FY 1999.
Expanding outreach, education, and technical assistance to small and mid-sized employers and under-served communities including a record 6,194 events attended by more than 475,000 people nationwide in FY 2000 and 2001 combined.
Reducing, in FY 2001, the federal sector appeals inventory by 24% from its 2000 level.

COMPREHENSIVE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

At the center of EEOC initiatives during this time period was the Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP), which was formulated and launched in FY 1999 to improve all components of Agency operations in both the private and federal sectors. Since FY 2000 (the first full year the CEP was in operation), the Commission has utilized the CEP to strategically coordinate the integration of Agency resources and increase collaboration among staff in all Agency functions, from outreach and intake through case resolution and litigation. Through the implementation of the Private Sector CEP, the Commission has sharply increased the share of charges resolved that deliver relief to charging parties whether through mediation, conciliation, or other settlement efforts and focused most of limited litigation resources on the most egregious cases and on cases benefitting multiple charging parties. Through the implementation of the Federal Sector CEP, the Commission has significantly expanded efforts to prevent discrimination as well as slow the growth in the hearings inventory by consolidating complaints made by the same individual and other means, and reduce the appeals inventory.

Private Sector

At the core of the Private Sector CEP are coordinated enforcement and litigation efforts, a sustained commitment to mediation-based alternative dispute resolution (see below), and strong partnerships with state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs). The CEP builds on the success of the Priority Charge Handling Procedures (PCHP) and the National Enforcement Plan, the Commission's strategies for prioritizing its caseload and focusing resources on issues of national significance, respectively. An integral aspect of the CEP is the close collaboration between investigators and attorneys in providing effective outreach, education, and technical assistance, and in expediting assessment and investigation of cases, including those that are prepared for litigation when settlement attempts fail. Strengthening the relationship between investigative and legal staff has been critical to addressing the substantial increase in substantive and potentially meritorious charges in the Agency's workload since 1995, when the PCHP was instituted to streamline resolution of less meritorious charges.

A key component of the Private Sector CEP is EEOC's groundbreaking National Mediation Program. The program, launched in FY 1999, completed its first full year in FY 2000. Mediation- based alternative dispute resolution is offered by EEOC early in the process to facilitate resolution without lengthy investigations or litigation. The decision to mediate is completely voluntary for charging parties and employers, and the mediation process is strictly confidential at every stage. A crucial "firewall" has been built into the mediation process in order to separate it completely from EEOC's enforcement activities. The program has won the endorsement of a broad range of Agency stakeholders, including business and labor advocates, civil rights groups, and representatives of the employer and plaintiff bars.

Another significant component of the Private Sector CEP is EEOC's Small Business Initiative (SBI), initially launched in FY 1999 with key input from the employer community. Through the SBI, the Commission continued to improve customer service and expand outreach, education, and technical assistance to the employer community during FYs 1999 through 2001. The SBI promotes voluntary compliance by building a more cooperative and collaborative relationship with the small and mid-sized business community to address equal employment opportunity (EEO) concerns expressed by small business owners. The main components of the SBI are expanding the use of mediation; providing for a small business liaison in every Agency district office; making public information material and guidance available in a "plain language" format; upgrading the small business information section on EEOC's web site; and developing regional small business outreach plans by Agency field offices. In recognition of its efforts with the small business community in FY 2000, EEOC received a rating of "Excellent" by the Small Business Administration's National Ombudsman for Regulatory Fairness.

Federal Sector

The CEP for the federal sector is intended to provide a strategic approach to federal sector reform by linking improved data analyses, prevention activities aimed at the root causes of discrimination, and a streamlined process for addressing EEO complaints. Federal agencies are responsible for providing for the prompt, fair, and impartial processing of complaints and maintaining a continuing affirmative program to eliminate discriminatory practices and policies. Through implem- entation of new regulations, the EEOC's federal sector program monitors and assists agencies in implementing changes to the federal complaint system; provides stakeholders and Agency staff with enhanced training, outreach, and technical assistance; and fosters innovative practices at agencies. Key to the Federal Sector CEP are the revised federal sector regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 1614) streamlining procedures governing the discrimination complaint process for federal employees (which became effective on November 9, 1999). The new rules improve the system by eliminating unnecessary layers of review, utilizing alternative dispute resolution throughout the process, and addressing perceptions of unfairness in the system.

PRIVATE SECTOR ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

In FY 2001 alone, EEOC obtained a total of $298.4 million in monetary benefits for victims of employment discrimination through administrative resolutions, mediation, and litigation, including a record-breaking $247.7 million through pre-litigation administrative enforcement.

By FY 2001, EEOC also had achieved the following in its private sector program:

Reduced the pending inventory of charges to 32,481 down from 34,297 in FY 2000 and 40,234 in FY 1999.
Continued to reduce the age of the pending inventory. At year-end FY 2001, 66% of the inventory was less than 180 days old, compared to 63% in FY 2000, 60% in FY 1999, and 49% in FY 1998.
Cut significantly the average charge processing time to 182 days, down from 216 days in FY 2000, 265 days in FY 1999, and 310 days in FY 1998.
Increased the number of cause resolutions by 8% to 8,924 in FY 2001, which represented just under 10% of all resolutions for the year. In FY 2000, cause resolutions represented 9% of all resolutions, which was up from 6.6% in FY 1999, and 4.6% in FY 1998. The increases are attributable to more substantive and timely investigations.
Increased the number of merit resolutions (those resolutions with favorable outcomes to the charging party) to 22% up from 21% in FY 2000, 17% in FY 1999, and 12% in FY 1998. Favorable outcomes include mediation and all other settlements, as well as cause findings which, if not settled, are considered for litigation.

National Mediation Program

In FY 2000, the National Mediation Program's first full year of operation, the EEOC continued efforts to publicize the program and foster increased participation by employers and charging parties. During FY 2001, 84% of charging parties chose to participate in the program, an increase over 83% in FY 2000, and 33% of employers agreed to mediate, compared with 31% in FY 2000. A comprehensive report on those who participated in the mediation program, prepared by a consortium of professors from Maryland colleges and universities, concluded that the overwhelming majority of employers (96%) and charging parties (91%) said they would use the program again if they were party to an EEOC charge. Moreover, the report (available on EEOC's web site at www.eeoc.gov) also showed that both employers and charging parties expressed strong satisfaction with the EEOC mediation process, finding it to be a highly effective dispute resolution mechanism.

Accomplishments of the National Mediation Program include:

Successful resolutions through voluntary mediation totaling 6,987 in FY 2001 and 7,438 in FY 2000.
Obtaining $90.3 million in monetary benefits through mediation in FY 2001 and $108.4 million in FY 2000.
Average resolution time for a mediated charge declined from 96 days in FY 2000 to 84 days in FY 2001.

EEOC LITIGATION

Through its litigation program in FY 2001, the EEOC obtained more than $50 million in monetary relief for victims of discrimination. The Commission tackled a range of cutting-edge issues, including genetic testing in the workplace; discrimination against women brokers in a major Wall Street firm; harassment of low-wage agricultural workers on the basis of national origin; and discrimination against male employees in medical coverage for their dependents. The Agency also addressed traditional issues such as equal pay for women, whether in non-traditional jobs (e.g., as camera technicians) or professional positions (e.g., as vice presidents of corporations); layoffs of older employees to make way for "young, aggressive workers"; failure to promote African-Americans into managerial positions; religious discrimination against employees with diverse faiths (Christian, Jewish, Muslim); reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities to allow them to work; and retaliation against employees who have openly opposed discrimination in their work places.

In addition, the agency increased the percentage of policy and multiple party cases in the active litigation docket to 40%, up from 39% in FY 2000, 32% in FY 1999, and 28% in FY 1996. Consolidating claims against an employer results in more efficient service to the public and greater consistency in remedies on the same or similar issues.

FY 1999 Major Litigation Highlights

During FY 1999, EEOC filed 464 lawsuits and resolved 349 lawsuits, resulting in monetary benefits of $98.4 million for victims of discrimination. Highlights include:

A $28 million settlement of a class action age discrimination case against Johnson and Higgins, a large insurance brokerage and employee benefits firm with 7,000 employees nationwide. The lawsuit alleged that the firm violated the ADEA through its policy of forcing employees who were members of its board of directors to retire at age 62.
A $25 million settlement (in pension adjustments and restoration of benefits) of a class action pregnancy discrimination case against Pacific Bell Telephone and Nevada Bell Telephone on behalf of 10,000 present and former employees. The lawsuit charged the employer with unlawfully denying pension credit to pregnant workers who took maternity leave.
A $7.1 million settlement of a class age bias case against Thomson Consumer Electronics and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers both based in Indianapolis. The settlement covers 800 older workers who were discriminated against in severance payments.
A $3.2 million settlement of a Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation case with Tyson Foods, Inc. (owner and operator of poultry processing plants nationwide). The monetary award is the largest EEOC settlement to date of a sexual harassment case in the South. As part of the consent decree, Tyson also agreed to implement management and employee training, anti-harassment policies, and internal complaint procedures.
A $2.6 million settlement of a Title VII sexual harassment lawsuit against Sidney Frank Importers and All State Promotions, distributors of Jagermeister liquor and Grey Goose vodka. The settlement on behalf of over 100 female employees is the largest EEOC settlement to date of a sexual harassment case in New York State.
A $2.1 million settlement of a class lawsuit against Woodbine Healthcare Center, a nursing home in Gladstone, Missouri. The lawsuit alleged that the employer discriminated against 65 Filipino registered nurses in wages, assignments, and other terms and conditions of employment due to their national origin.
A $1.9 million settlement of a class action sexual harassment lawsuit against Long Prairie Packing, a Minnesota-based meat packing company. The settlement represents EEOC's first class action challenging a pattern and practice of sex-based harassment by men against men.
A $1.85 million settlement of a Title VII quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation case with Tanimura & Antle, Inc., one of the largest lettuce growers and distributors in the United States. The employer agreed to take innovative steps to revise, as necessary, its existing sexual harassment policy and the handling of complaints of harassment. Tanimura & Antle also agreed to provide mandatory sexual harassment training to all of its employees.
A $1.25 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against American Seafoods Company, a Seattle-based operation and a dominant force in the U.S. fishing industry. The suit charged the employer with subjecting 18 Vietnamese American at-sea workers to discriminatory conditions due to their national origin.
A consent decree providing $1 million in monetary relief to a class of women employed by Southwest Supermarkets, Inc. The lawsuit alleged that the defendant subjected female employees in its Arizona stores to a sexually hostile work environment, and retaliated against employees who complained about the sexual harassment, including by constructive discharge.
A consent decree settling a lawsuit against American National Can Company, doing business as Foster-Forbes Glass and Bell-Foster Glass Container Company of Wilson, North Carolina. The suit alleged that the company had subjected black employees to racial harassment, including racially offensive graffiti, name calling, and jokes. The consent decree provided that a class of 90 current and former employees would receive $275,000 and established a $100,000 Partnership Training Program designed to improve employee relations and help employees enhance their problem-solving skills.
A $167,000 settlement in a lawsuit brought under the ADA against Annett Holdings, doing business as TMC Transportation, of Des Moines, Iowa, on behalf of a former TMC over-the- road truck driver. The suit alleged that TMC violated the ADA by refusing to schedule the driver's runs in a way that would accommodate regularly-scheduled medical visits to treat his lupus disease, and by firing him because of the disease rather than returning him to work as a driver.
A $55,000 settlement in a religious discrimination lawsuit brought under Title VII against UNICCO Services Company. The suit alleged that UNICCO discriminated by denying employment as a security guard to a member of the Islamic faith because of his religious practice of wearing a cap.

FY 2000 Major Litigation Highlights

During FY 2000, EEOC filed 328 lawsuits and resolved 438 lawsuits, resulting in monetary benefits of $49.8 million for victims of discrimination. Highlights include:

A jury verdict for $13 million in punitive damages and $70,000 in compensatory damages in a disability discrimination lawsuit against a Chuck E. Cheese's restaurant in Wisconsin. The suit alleged that a district manager fired a custodial worker due to his disability, mental retardation, because the manager did not want "those people" employed at the restaurant. The court reduced the total damages recovered to $300,000, the maximum allowed under federal law, and ordered the company to provide back pay and give the custodian his job back.
An $8 million settlement of an age discrimination case against AlliedSignal of Arizona on behalf of 48 charging parties and approximately 300 class members. The lawsuit alleged that the company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) when it laid off older workers at its Tempe and Phoenix facilities in 1993 and 1994.
A $2.75 million settlement of a class race and national origin lawsuit against Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, of California. The suit alleged that the use of a Test of Adult Basic Education to screen applicants for employment as casual longshore workers had a disparate impact on African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.
A $1.3 million settlement of a class racial and sexual harassment lawsuit against Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc. The suit alleged a hostile work environment for African- American and female employees who were subjected to persistent racist and sexist graffiti at a construction site in Illinois.
A $1 million settlement of a class sexual harassment lawsuit against Grace Culinary Systems and Townsend Culinary. The suit alleged egregious sexual harassment against 22 Hispanic female workers who were recent immigrants in low-wage jobs at a Maryland food processing plant.
A $700,000 settlement of a class race discrimination lawsuit against Direct Marketing Services of Arizona. The suit alleged that African-American employees of the telemarketing firm were racially harassed, paid unequal wages, and denied promotions.
A $700,000 post-judgment settlement of a national origin discrimination lawsuit against Premier Operator Services, a former long distance telephone operator in Texas. The suit alleged that Hispanic employees were required to speak only English at the workplace and that 13 Hispanic workers were fired for protesting the restrictive language policy, which banned the speaking of languages other than English at all times including during lunch and other breaks in the workplace. The settlement, which followed a successful bench trial, represents EEOC's largest recovery to date for English-only violations.
A $500,000 settlement of a same-sex harassment lawsuit against Burt Chevrolet and LGC Management of Colorado. The suit alleged that, because of their gender, 10 former salesmen were subjected to persistent harassment by male managers.
A $300,000 class settlement of an age bias lawsuit against Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Texas. The lawsuit alleged that the company refused to hire individuals 40 years of age or older for management trainee positions.
A $220,000 settlement of a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Landers Auto Sales, Inc. of Arkansas, part of the United Auto Group. The suit alleged that the company discriminated against a former sales manager who is paralyzed and uses a wheelchair by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation, substantially cutting his salary, demoting him because of his disability, and retaliating against him for protesting the discriminatory treatment.
A $192,500 settlement of a national origin discrimination lawsuit against Watlow Batavia, a subsidiary of Watlow Electric Manufacturing of St. Louis. The suit alleged that the company prohibited Hispanic workers from speaking any language other than English during working hours (including lunch and breaks) and discharged Hispanic employees for violating the English-only rule and for objecting to the rule.
A $144,000 settlement of a religious discrimination lawsuit against Servicemaster Aviation and Delta Airlines in Georgia. The suit alleged that the companies failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of six workers of the Islamic faith who refused to cut their beards which they wore for religious reasons.
A $132,500 settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in Arizona. The suit alleged that Wal-Mart discriminated against two deaf applicants in the hiring process. The settlement also required Wal-Mart to offer jobs to the two applicants and to make corporate-wide changes in hiring and training. (See later contempt-of-court action, p. 16)
A $100,000 recovery in an Equal Pay Act suit against Eastern Michigan University. The suit alleged that the university engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it paid its only female professor in the Industrial Technology Department less than her male colleagues for doing essentially the same work.

FY 2001 Major Litigation Highlights

During FY 2001, EEOC filed 430 lawsuits and resolved 360 lawsuits, resulting in monetary benefits of $51.2 million for victims of discrimination. Highlights include:

An $8 million settlement with CBS Broadcasting, Inc. on behalf of approximately 200 female technicians at television stations across the country. The lawsuit alleged that CBS subjected the class to a pattern and practice of discrimination in regard to salary, overtime, promotions and training; created a hostile work environment that included sexual harassment; and retaliated against female employees for complaining about the discrimination.
A $5 million settlement with American Cast Iron Pipe Company of Birmingham, Alabama. The EEOC intervened in a class action lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs, alleging that the company's policy on medical and dental insurance coverage intentionally discriminated against African-Americans and males.
A $3.5 million settlement of a lawsuit against Quality Art LLC, a now-defunct picture frame manufacturer based in Gilbert, Arizona. The suit alleged that 35 female and Hispanic low-wage workers, mostly Mexican and Guatemalan, were subjected to widespread sexual harassment, national origin discrimination, and retaliation including firing and forced resignations and threats to report several employees to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for arrest and deportation after they complained about the discrimination.
A $2.6 million settlement of a class action sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA). The suit charged TWA with subjecting dozens of female employees at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City to a sexually hostile work environment since January 1988 that culminated in severe and repeated harassment and retaliation for complaining about the discrimination.
A $2.4 million settlement of a national origin discrimination lawsuit against the University of Incarnate Word, a private university in San Antonio, Texas. The suit alleged that a class of 18 Hispanic housekeepers was unlawfully required to speak English at all times, even while at lunch and during employee breaks, and subjected to severe and pervasive harassment for over 10 years. The settlement is the largest known monetary resolution for a lawsuit concerning an English-only rule in the workplace.
A $2.2 million jury verdict resolving a lawsuit filed under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Outback Steakhouse in the Tampa, Florida, area. (The amount awarded by the jury included $2.1 million in punitive damages, which is subject to a statutory cap of $300,000.) The suit alleged that the company paid a female employee less than a similarly situated male employee who performed the same duties, and terminated her when she complained.
A $1.8 million settlement by consent decree with Ingersoll Milling Machine Company. The lawsuit alleged that the company refused to hire African-Americans because of their race; discriminated against those African-American individuals it did hire in pay, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment; and discriminated against women in pay.
A $1.25 million settlement of a consolidated group of Title VII lawsuits against General Motors Corporation (GM), which was shared by 16 individuals. The suits alleged that GM acquiesced in sexual and/or racial harassment toward African-American employees, including a hangman's noose in the lunchroom, and retaliated against those who complained.
A $1.2 million settlement for nine individuals in a racial harassment lawsuit against Beverly Enterprises, Inc., which operates several nursing homes in the St. Louis, Missouri, area. The suit claimed that the administrator of Beverly's Bridgeton Nursing Center pursued a campaign of flagrant racial harassment against the facility's predominantly black workforce. The administrator also required applications to be coded with smiling faces for white applicants and frowning faces for black applicants. When some employees, both black and white, refused to follow or complained about her discriminatory practices, she retaliated by discharging them or forcing them to resign.
A $635,000 settlement of an employment discrimination lawsuit against Salomon Smith Barney, a subsidiary of Citigroup and the nation's second largest retail brokerage firm. The Title VII suit alleged that Salomon's Greenwich Street Data Center in New York City subjected a class of African-American, Haitian, Nigerian, and West Indian employees to repeated and offensive comments that created a hostile work environment, paying them disparate wages, and denying them salary increases, promotions, and equal opportunities for promotion because of their race and/or countries of origin.
A $427,500 settlement of a contempt-of-court finding in an ADA lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The court found that Wal-Mart had failed to comply with a court-ordered settlement resolving EEOC's initial claims that Wal-Mart refused to hire two men because of their deafness. An amended consent decree also provided for Wal-Mart to produce and pay for television commercials featuring the two charging parties describing their case. (See original suit, p. 14)
A $300,000 settlement of a national origin discrimination lawsuit against Prudential Insurance, charging Prudential with instituting a discriminatory language policy prohibiting Haitian employees from speaking Creole at work and otherwise harassing them due to their nationality.
A $200,000 settlement of a racial harassment lawsuit against Georgia-Pacific Corporation, a leading global manufacturer and distributor of paper and building products, on behalf of four African-American employees who were subjected to a racially hostile work environment, including racial slurs, jokes, comments, and graffiti by a white supervisor. One employee was fired after complaining about the harassment.
A $150,000 settlement with two Bakersfield, California, agricultural employers, Golden Valley Produce, a carrot processing and distribution facility, and William Bolthouse Farms, a plant operator. The lawsuit alleged that a Golden Valley supervisor sexually harassed two female employees and that they were fired in retaliation for complaining to management.
A preliminary injunction against the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company to end genetic testing of employees who filed claims for work-related injuries based on carpal tunnel syndrome. This legal action was the Commission's first challenging workplace genetic testing under the ADA.
A preliminary injunction against Austin J. DeCoster, doing business as DeCoster Farms of Iowa, and Iowa Ag LLC, requiring the companies to notify their employees that sexual harassment of Mexican female workers would not be tolerated and that all employees were encouraged to cooperate with a federal investigation of claims of widespread sexual assault without fear of retaliation.
A lawsuit against Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. alleging that the Wall Street brokerage firm discriminated against a female former convertible bond sales representative and as many as 100 other women in the company's Institutional Equity Division on the basis of their gender.

Appellate Services

Appellate Services represents the Commission in the courts of appeals and makes all recommendations that lead to appearances in those courts. For example, Appellate Services makes recommendations to the General Counsel concerning which cases filed by the Commission should be appealed following an adverse decision in the trial court. In addition, Appellate Services represents the Commission in the courts of appeals when the Commission has won a case in the trial court and the opposing party appeals. Finally, Appellate Services makes recommendations to the Commission to file briefs as amicus curiae in the courts of appeals in private cases that raise important issues under EEOC-enforced statutes.

Supreme Court litigation is handled for EEOC by the Solicitor General at the Department of Justice. Appellate Services submits recommendation memoranda and draft briefs to the Solicitor General for filing in the Supreme Court when the Commission approves participation in a private case as amicus curiae or authorizes pursuit of a petition for certiorari review in a Commission case.

In FYs 1999, 2000, and 2001, Appellate Services filed 268 briefs on behalf of the Commission 141 as a party and 127 as amicus curiae. Some of the more significant decisions in cases in which Appellate Services filed briefs are discussed below.

Significant Decisions in FY 1999

The Supreme Court decided a number of significant ADA cases during this term. In Cleveland v. Policy Management System Corp., the Court agreed with the position advanced by the Commission in a brief filed as amicus curiae by the Solicitor General, and held that an individual's representations about his ability to work, made in support of claims for disability benefits under the Social Security provisions, are not determinative of his claim that he is a covered, qualified individual under the ADA, and thus such an individual is not precluded from pursuing an ADA claim. In a trilogy of cases, the Court explained the parameters of the definition of disability, disagreeing with EEOC's argument and holding that an individual's limitations on performing major life activities must be assessed in light of any "mitigating measures" the individual uses. A person who is not substantially limited in performing a major life activity when using a mitigating measure does not meet the ADA's definition of an actual "disability." Thus, the Court held in Sutton v. United Airlines that individuals whose vision is corrected to 20-20 with eyeglasses are not covered by the ADA, and in Murphy v. United Parcel Service that an individual whose hypertension is largely controlled by medication is not covered by the ADA. In Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, the Commission joined the Solicitor General in an amicus brief in support of a truck driver with monocular vision who sued his employer for violating the ADA when it terminated his employment. The Court agreed with the government's position that "people with monocular vision 'ordinarily' will meet the Act's definition of disability." The Court also ruled that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA because he could not meet the vision acuity standard adopted by the Department of Transportation for commercial truck drivers.
In a critical decision explaining the standards for assessing punitive damages under Title VII and the ADA, the Supreme Court agreed with EEOC's views as advanced by the Solicitor General in an amicus curiae brief, and held in Kolstad v. American Dental Association, that a plaintiff need only show that the employer intentionally discriminated "with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual." Proof of "egregious" conduct on behalf of the employer is not required.
In West v. Gibson, an important decision affecting all federal employees who appeal adverse agency decisions to EEOC, the Court agreed with EEOC's and the employing agency's views, expressed by the Solicitor General in the government's brief as petitioner, that EEOC has the authority to award compensatory damages against federal agencies in the administrative process.

Significant Decisions in FY 2000

In Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, the Supreme Court rejected the EEOC's view, advanced in a joint brief with the government filed as amicus curiae by the Solicitor General, and held in a 5-4 decision that Congress lacked constitutional authority under the 14th Amendment to abrogate the 11th Amendment sovereign immunity from suits seeking monetary damages by private citizens against state employers under the ADEA. The impact of the decision is that, while states are subject to the substantive provisions of the ADEA, enforcement actions seeking monetary relief may only be pursued by the EEOC, and private citizens are limited to suing for injunctive and declaratory relief.
In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the EEOC's view, expressed by the Solicitor General in an amicus curiae brief, that a plaintiff's prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted reason for its action is false, is all that is needed to allow a fact finder to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated. In other words, the Court rejected the view of some lower courts that some additional, independent evidence of discrimination is needed beyond the showing that the asserted reason for the action is pretextual.

Significant Decisions in FY 2001

In Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, the Solicitor General filed a brief on the Commission's behalf as amicus curiae to argue that the exclusion in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to all employment contracts otherwise subject to the terms of the Act. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that the exclusion is limited to the employment contracts of transportation workers. The impact of this ruling is that most mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context are encompassed within the FAA.
In a unanimous ruling in Pollard v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., a Title VII sexual harassment case, the Supreme Court held that front pay is not an element of compensatory damages, and, therefore, the damages caps contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 are inapplicable to an award of front pay. The Supreme Court's ruling comports with the Commission's position on this issue, as expressed both in its enforcement guidance and in an amicus curiae brief filed jointly with the Department of Justice by the Solicitor General.
In EEOC v. Kentucky Retirement System, a significant lower court case following the Supreme Court's decision in Kimel (see Significant Decisions in FY 2000, p. 18), the 6th Circuit held that the State of Kentucky is not entitled to immunity on either 10th or 11th Amendment grounds from the EEOC's suit seeking Kentucky's compliance with the ADEA and relief for persons injured by violations of the ADEA.
In U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, the 9th Circuit, in an 8-3 en banc decision, agreed with the positions taken by the Commission as amicus curiae and relied heavily on the Commission's administrative interpretations of the ADA in holding that an employer's obligation to provide reassignment as a reasonable accommodation entails more than just permitting an employee with a disability to compete on equal terms for vacant positions and that an employer is not relieved from its obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation merely because it conflicts with a seniority system.
In Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., an ADA case brought by an individual with diabetes, the 7th Circuit agreed with each of the arguments advanced by the EEOC as amicus curiae, holding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that: 1) the individual's diabetes substantially limited him in the major life activity of eating and was therefore a current disability; 2) the individual's receipt of Social Security disability benefits over a 12-year period, and the medical history that supported the Social Security Administration award, showed that the individual's diabetes had in the past substantially limited him in working and demonstrated a record of disability; and 3) CSX discriminated against the individual because of his diabetes.

FEDERAL SECTOR HIGHLIGHTS

Building on the reforms EEOC initiated in 1999, in conjunction with the successful implementation of the revised Part 1614 federal sector regulations (effective November 9, 1999), the Commission's federal sector program in FY 2001 provided significant measurable results to all its stakeholders. The Commission continues to refine its federal sector efforts in order to strategically focus its federal sector resources in an attempt to identify and eliminate the causes of discrimination.

To this end, beginning in FY 2001, the Commission expanded its government-wide program of outreach, education, and technical assistance to agencies and employee stakeholders; conducted more carefully designed and focused onsite reviews of federal agencies' EEO programs; made significant strides to accomplish improvements in the systems for collecting and reporting data on complaints processing; curbed the growth of the hearings inventory; and slashed the pending appeals inventory by approximately 37% since January 2000.

EEOC's FY 2001 accomplishments in the federal sector program include the following:

Planned and conducted a nationwide federal sector conference in June which brought together a diverse group of federal sector Commission employees and stakeholders to address issues of interest to the federal sector community. This second-ever federal sector conference provided a unique opportunity to train Commission staff and simultaneously obtain feedback from stakeholder attendees.
Completed and disseminated a state-of-the-art computer based training (CBT) program, Sailing through the EEO Complaint Process, which is fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. During the initial mailing of the program, EEOC supplied copies to all federal agency EEO offices and a large number of major stakeholder groups. The CBT enables the Commission to provide desktop training to federal sector EEO program employees located nationwide.
Continued to enhance the hearings program in EEOC field offices and to curb the growth of the hearings inventory, including the following:
- Reducing the average processing time of hearings cases from 381 days in FY 2000 to 343 days in FY 2001.
- Obtaining monetary benefits exceeding $32 million for nearly 2,800 individuals in FY 2001.
- Resolving a total of 31,641 cases and issuing 12,182 decisions on the merits by Administrative Judges during the three-year period.
Continued to make significant reductions in the EEOC appeals inventory through the use of innovative case management techniques and pilot programs, including:
- Reducing the appeals inventory to 7,536, the lowest level since FY 1995, a 37% reduction from the high of 11,918 in January 1999, and a 24% reduction from the ending FY 2000 inventory of 9,975.
- Closing more cases Appellate attorneys resolved an unprecedented 9,333 appeals in FY 2001, a 2% increase from 9,148 appeals resolved in FY 1999.
- Obtaining $8.3 million in benefits for complainants as a result of compliance monitoring of appellate decisions.
- Implementing the Federal Appeals Inventory Review (FAIR) project during the first quarter of FY 2001 in response to the voices of stakeholders, including federal agency representatives, members of the Bar, and federal employees. The FAIR project requires appellate attorneys to make an early assessment of every appeal pending in the appellate inventory and to identify those cases which must be prioritized and expeditiously processed. In addition, the FAIR project has enabled the Commission to efficiently expedite the consolidation of appeals, avoid fragmentation of claims, and compile the appellate case record more efficiently.
- Developing training curriculum, and providing fee-based customer specific training (CST) and technical assistance to federal agencies through EEOC's Revolving Fund, including a 16-hour EEO Training Course for Managers and Supervisors for the Environmental Protection Agency. Appellate attorneys began delivering this course in the fourth quarter in FY 2001 and will continue to provide the course in FY 2002.
Continued or completed several innovative pilot programs to streamline the EEO complaint and appeals process, including:
- Established a national mediation program for complaints against the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) received by EEOC hearings units across the country. The program provides for hearings units to refer virtually all incoming USPS cases to that agency, which will arrange for mediation of the cases. Implementation is scheduled to begin during the first quarter of FY 2002.
- Continued a pilot program with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the electronic transfer of complaint files from DLA to EEOC when an administrative appeal is filed. In FY 2001, the pilot was expanded to include the Air Force and additional agencies expressed interested in participation.
- Completed a pilot with the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce (the 2000 Decennial Census EEO Complaints Processing Project), designed to expedite the processing of complaints filed by temporary decennial census employees and ensure the Commission's intervention as a third-party neutral at an early stage.
- Completed a project involving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the National Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Center, Department of Agricul- ture (NFC). The one-year agreement provides for an EEOC Administrative Judge to work full-time on processing requests for hearings on EEO complaints filed against the NFC. Under the MOU, the NFC provides funds to cover the salary, benefits, and expenses for EEOC's employee.
Provided a variety of measures to assist agencies in the development of their Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs, including:
- Featuring the role of ADR in the federal sector during a nationwide training program offered to the federal sector community on the requirements of the revised Section 1614 regulations.
- Providing attorneys in EEOC's Office of Federal Operations for consultation on specific questions and concerns which agencies may have regarding their ADR programs. Agencies may submit their programs, or proposed programs, to EEOC for input concerning their compliance with Commission regulations.
Continued efforts in FY 2001 to complete dissemination of federal sector materials through placement of Commission decisions on the EEOC Internet site. This resource has provided public access to a wealth of federal sector informational materials on employment discrimin- ation and federal EEO procedures previously available only through paid legal research services or in law libraries. Decisions from July 2000 through the present are now available.
Implemented part of a Federal Sector Mediation Services Pilot Program, which will provide mediation services for small agencies with limited resources. EEOC is currently negotiating with several small agencies to provide such services.
Conducted a series of training programs and town hall meetings in major cities nationwide on the recently revised federal sector regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 1614) designed to streamline the discrimination complaint system for federal employees. The program is part of EEOC's broader efforts to improve the federal sector EEO process by making it more efficient, expe- dient, and fair for employees and agencies alike.

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The Commission's outreach, education, and technical assistance activities are critical to its mission of eradicating employment discrimination. Recognizing that voluntary compliance is essential to achieving its mission, EEOC continued to emphasize education and outreach. The National Enforcement Plan requires that each of EEOC's offices develops and implements an education and outreach plan tailored to the needs of its communities. Each office provides information on the Agency's operations, programs, activities, and EEOC-enforced laws through printed materials, speeches, and educational and outreach workshops. Seminars produced in the field that offered technical assistance to employers in the private sector and state and local governments drew an over- whelming response. EEOC's various outreach presentations have reached hundreds of thousands of people in recent years.

Outreach and Education

The EEOC's outreach program provides no-cost education and information to audiences around the country. The Commission also makes use of various forums through which to impart information on the Agency's programs, activities, and operations. EEOC staff make presentations to private employers; legal and professional organizations; law enforcement agencies; human rights and advocacy organizations; federal, state and local government agencies; and other groups affected by EEOC laws. Throughout FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001, the Commission conducted approximately 8,700 presentations on a wide range of equal employment-related topics reaching audiences of over 682,000 persons. In addition, the Office of Legal Counsel provided extensive guidance and interpretation of EEOC statutes in response to telephone calls and written inquiries from the public.

In addition, Commission officials traveled to dozens of U.S. cities and overseas to meet with and receive feedback from a broad range of stakeholders representing small and medium-sized busi- nesses, the employer and plaintiff bars, civil rights advocates, state and local governments, colleges and universities, and community-based organizations.

Selected highlights of noteworthy meetings and outreach events are as follows:

10th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act: The EEOC held a special Commission Meeting in July 2000 commemorating the 10th anniversary of the ADA. During the public meeting, the Commission reviewed the history of ADA enforcement and looked ahead at challenges in the 21st century workplace, issued a special report highlighting Agency accomplishments since the implem- entation of Title I of the ADA, and issued two new policy guidance documents addressing key ADA issues (see Policy Guidance and Rulemaking). In addition, key Commission officials participated in ADA Torch Relay events in major cities across the country and gave speeches on the evolution of the ADA since it was enacted on July 26, 1990.

EEOC's 35th Anniversary: To commemorate this historic milestone in FY 2000, and to reaffirm EEOC's commitment to the eradication of workplace discrimination, the Agency conducted a series of 35th anniversary events at field offices across the country. In addition, EEOC sponsored a National Student Artwork and Essay Contest entitled EEOC's Mission Through the Eyes of a Child, which was designed to educate the public about the rich heritage of civil rights and to highlight EEOC's role in enforcement and discrimination prevention; coordinated with the American Bar Association's Section on Labor and Employment Law on a joint publication reviewing the history of the Commission (which can be obtained by contacting EEOC Headquarters); and joined with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to create an Attorney Honors Program to recruit qualified entry level attorneys and train them for highly skilled legal work in each of the two agencies.

In addition, the Commission continued to use electronic technologies as educational tools for both the public and EEOC staff nationwide:

Internet Web Site: The EEOC upgraded and expanded its industry-acclaimed Internet Home Page on the World Wide Web (www.eeoc.gov) in FYs 1999 through 2001, adding an historic special section commemorating the Commission's 35th anniversary, a special report on the 10th anniversary of the ADA, searchable databases for federal sector decisions and private sector appellate briefs, and a user-friendly search engine to locate information on the site. Use of the Internet site escalated from an average of 82,714 visitors per month in FY 1999 to 155,496 in FY 2000 to 208,534 in FY 2001. Since FY 1998, the public's use of the EEOC's web site has increased more than five-fold, from an average of 39,980 visitors per month.

EEOC Intranet Site: The EEOC developed an internal Agency web site, inSite, providing a one- stop source of information for Agency employees. The purpose of the site is to make available a shared set of business-related information and tools that are easily accessible in an electronic format to assist staff with accomplishing EEOC's overall mission.

The EEOC also developed several task forces to better focus outreach on some of the issues and communities at the forefront of the Agency's mission during this time period:

Equal Pay Task Force: The EEOC created an internal Equal Pay Task Force to provide assistance to field enforcement staff in their development of cases involving equal pay and employment discrimination in compensation. The Task Force provides direct assistance to investigative staff in the identification of pay issues when a charge is initially filed, in the development of appropriate data requests, and in the ongoing analysis of the charge; refines appropriate data techniques for the development of compelling statistical evidence; and prepares in-depth statistical analyses of reports for individual investigations.

National Origin Task Force: The EEOC launched an internal Agency task force comprised of eight EEOC district offices with jurisdictions in geographic areas with large immigrant and recent refugee populations. These communities are more likely than others to bear discrimination without filing complaints for fear of retaliation (including threats to their residency), distrust of government officials, or lack of awareness of their legal rights. Moreover, they are often subjected to language and accent discrimination in the workplace, including speak-English-only rules. The Task Force was charged with developing a strategy to guide and coordinate EEOC's overall efforts to address national origin bias more effectively through education and outreach at the grassroots level, collaboration with community groups, extensive research, and data analysis.

Asian American and Pacific Islander Initiative: The EEOC implemented Executive Order 13125 to improve Asian Americans' and Pacific Islanders' access to and participation in federal programs. The EEOC produced an inventory on Asian American and Pacific Islander participation in Agency programs and a strategic plan for FYs 2001 through 2003 to increase the number of Agency publications in languages other than English and to identify resources for distribution of EEOC publications to the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.

Low Wage Earner Task Force: The EEOC formed a tri-district task force to build a coalition of stakeholder representatives and contacts and to develop an enforcement plan addressing low-wage earner issues. The Task Force focuses on outreach to immigrants, border workers, and farm laborers, identifying issues pertinent to each community. The Task Force also coordinates with federal, state, and local government agencies with similar jurisdictional responsibilities to assist enforcement. As a result of the Task Force, several investigations were commenced regarding pay disparities, speak- English-only rules, job segregation, and immigration-related national origin discrimination.

Cash Balance Task Force: The EEOC created an internal task force to guide the Commission in its review of cash balance pension plans. The Task Force's mandate is to analyze the legality of cash balance pension plans a hybrid of traditional defined benefit plans with features of defined contribution (401(k)-type) plans under the ADEA. During FY 2000, the EEOC received approximately 800 charge filings alleging ADEA violations involving cash balance pension plans.

Revolving Fund Activities

A second component of the education and outreach program consists of specialized, in-depth training and technical assistance provided on a fee basis through EEOC's Education, Technical Assistance, and Training Revolving Fund. Programs sponsored by the Revolving Fund augment those the Agency provides at no cost to the public. With the increase in charges following the passage of the ADA and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, EEOC needed additional funding to meet the growing demand for assistance on how to comply with federal EEO laws.

Accordingly, Congress passed the EEOC Education, Technical Assistance, and Training Revolving Fund Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-411), which enabled the Commission to provide comprehensive, specialized education, technical assistance, and training on the laws it enforces. Congress appropriated $1 million as a start-up for the Revolving Fund. The fund, which allows the Commission to charge reasonable fees to cover the costs of training and technical assistance, has helped EEOC leverage its limited appropriated funds to meet legislative mandates requiring free education and technical assistance to the public.

Since FY 1993, the Revolving Fund has sponsored a series of Technical Assistance Program Seminars (TAPS) conducted by field offices. The seminars provide information to employers in the federal sector, the private sector, and state and local governments, and enable them to comply more easily with laws enforced by EEOC. During the period between FY 1999 and FY 2001, the Agency conducted 217 TAPS and reached more than 32,500 participants.

During FY 2001, EEOC conducted 367 fee-paid training events attended by nearly 22,000 persons. These programs included 60 TAPS, 275 on-site training programs tailored for individual employers or federal agencies, 31 courses for federal EEO counselors or investigators, and one course for mediators. The program has grown from FY 1999 when 292 fee-based events were offered, reaching 19,941 attendees.

TAPS are typically one-day programs that feature sessions on current EEO topics and are held in many major cities throughout the country. The on-site training programs vary in length from a quarter day to a full week and are held at a company's or agency's work site. During this period, the most requested topic for on-site training was harassment. Counselor and investigator courses were offered for federal agencies, both in Washington, D.C. and regionally.

POLICY GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING

The EEOC produces a variety of policy guidance documents that assist employees and employers in understanding their rights and obligations under the law. For example, the Commission issues regulations, amicus curiae briefs filed in the courts, substantive rules, interpretative guidance documents, and federal sector appeals decisions. The courts, including the Supreme Court, look to EEOC guidance for interpretation of the statutes the Agency enforces, and the Office of General Counsel cites them as authority in litigation to advance the position taken in the guidance. The Commission provides advice to field offices in interpreting and applying significant court decisions and in evaluating evidence in discrimination cases. The guidance on interpreting the law in Commission decisions, regulations, and the EEOC Compliance Manual, developed by the Office of Legal Counsel, is available to the public.

Some of the policy guidance and rulemaking documents approved by the Commission during the three fiscal years represented in this report are:

Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship: On March 1, 1999, the Commission issued a policy guidance addressing the duty of employers to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees with disabilities. The guidance also provides a list of resources to help employers and people with disabilities identify reasonable accommodations.

Guidance on Employer Liability for Harassment by Supervisors: On June 18, 1999, the Commission issued a policy guidance explaining the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for unlawful harassment by supervisors. The guidance addresses the steps employers should take to prevent and correct harassment and explains employees' obligations to bring complaints of harassment to their employers' attention.

Federal Sector EEO Processing Rule: On July 12, 1999, the Commission published a final rule revising the federal sector processing regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 1614). The rule, which became effective November 9, 1999, streamlines the procedures governing the discrimination complaint process for federal employees and applicants for federal employment. (See other references, pp. 7, 20, 22)

Guidance on Remedies for Undocumented Workers: On October 22, 1999, the EEOC issued a policy guidance explaining that the anti-discrimination laws enforced by the Commission protect all workers in the United States, regardless of their work status. As a result, subject to limited exceptions where such remedies would conflict with the immigration laws, the guidance explains that undocumented workers are entitled to the full range of remedies provided under the anti- discrimination statutes.

Harassment Guidelines: On October 29, 1999, the Commission issued an interpretive final rule rescinding subsection (c) of its guidelines on sex discrimination and national origin discrimination (29 C.F. R. .. 1604.11, 1606.8) to conform with Supreme Court rulings on employer liability for harassment by supervisors.

Proposed Rehabilitation Act Rule: On March 1, 2000, the Commission requested public comment on a proposal to revise its regulation interpreting Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the law which prohibits disability-based discrimination by federal employers. Pursuant to statute, the rule establishes that the ADA nondiscrimination standards apply in the federal sector.

Compliance Manual Section on Threshold Issues: On May 12, 2000, the EEOC issued a new section to its Compliance Manual addressing "threshold" issues. The issuance of the new chapter marked an important step in the Commission's ongoing effort to update its Compliance Manual in order to enhance enforcement and compliance with the anti-discrimination laws.

Final Rule on Mitigating Measures Under ADA: On June 8, 2000, the Commission issued a rule rescinding several sentences of EEOC's interpretive guidance on Title I of the ADA that addressed mitigating measures used by persons with impairments. The rule was necessary as a result of the Supreme Court's rulings in Sutton v. United Airlines and Murphy v. United Parcel Service.

Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations: On July 26, 2000, the 10th anniversary of the ADA's enactment, EEOC issued a comprehensive policy guidance explaining the circumstances under which an employer may ask current employees disability-related questions or require medical examinations under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The guidance points out that such inquiries and exams must be "job-related and consistent with business necessity."

Guidance on Executive Order 13145: To Prohibit Discrimination in Federal Employment Based on Genetic Information: Also on July 26, 2000, the EEOC issued guidance explaining Executive Order 13145, which prohibits genetic discrimination in federal employment. This guidance represents a significant step in the ongoing development of the legal analysis of how to address genetic discrimination in the workplace.

Compliance Manual Section on Employee Benefits Issues: On October 3, 2000, the Commission issued a new section to its Compliance Manual which provides the Commission's first comprehensive analysis of some of the most important employee benefits issues under anti-discrimination laws. The new section analyzes benefit discrimination claims under each of the laws enforced by the Commission, clearly explaining that the laws prohibit discrimination in fringe benefits. The section examines the legal standards that apply to claims of discrimination in health and life insurance benefits, long-term and short-term disability benefits, severance benefits, pension or other retirement benefits, and early retirement incentives. The limited circumstances in which the law permits employers to provide lower benefits to older employees than to younger workers and the specific requirements of the ADA are set forth.

Guidance to Federal Agencies on Reasonable Accommodation: On October 20, 2000, the EEOC released a policy guidance implementing Executive Order 13164, which requires all federal employers to establish effective written procedures for processing requests for "reasonable accommodation" by employees and applicants with disabilities.

Compliance Manual Section on Compensation Issues: On December 7, 2000, the Commission issued a new section to its Compliance Manual which provided an updated, comprehensive analysis of the most important compensation issues under each of the anti-discrimination laws enforced by EEOC. The new Compliance Manual section explains that the law covers all forms of compensation including salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock options, profit sharing plans, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, reimbursement for travel expenses, and other fringe benefits. In addition to examining the legal standards for determining whether compensation discrimination exists, it also explains that employment practices that indirectly affect employee compensation, such as promotions, appraisal systems, and work assignments, should be scrutinized carefully to ensure that they are not unlawful.

"Tender Back" Rule: On December 11, 2000, EEOC issued a final regulation prohibiting employers from requiring the return, or "tender back," of consideration, such as severance pay, as a condition for challenging waivers under the ADEA. The new rule, 29 C.F.R. .1625.23, addressed the Supreme Court's 1998 decision in Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, and related issues regarding waivers.

Commission Decision on Health Plans and Contraceptives: On December 14, 2000, EEOC issued a Commission Decision finding merit in two charges of discrimination alleging violations of Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The respondents in the charges excluded the cost of prescription contraceptive drugs available only to women from their employee health plans while covering many other preventive drugs, devices, and services, including surgical sterilization for both men and women, as well as Viagra for men.

Guidance on Contingent Workers: On December 22, 2000, the Commission issued new enforcement guidance clarifying how the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to contingent workers those workers placed in job assignments by staffing firms, such as temporary employment agencies or contract firms. The guidance explains that these workers frequently qualify as the employ- ees of both the staffing firm and its client. Therefore, both entities have obligations to contingent workers under the provisions of the ADA.

Internal Procedures on Reasonable Accommodation: On February 7, 2001, EEOC issued new internal procedures for providing reasonable accommodation for EEOC employees and applicants with disabilities. The new standards implement the requirements of Executive Order 13164, which requires all federal agencies to develop written procedures explaining how they will process reasonable accommodation requests. The Executive Order also directed EEOC to publish guidance to assist federal agencies in drafting their procedures.

Rescission of Compliance Manual: On August 20, 2001, EEOC issued an official rescission of portions of the Commission's Compliance Manual section on "Employee Benefits" that discuss the application of the ADEA to retiree health plans. The rescission, approved on August 17, 2000, by a unanimous vote of the Commission, resulted from a review of the policy's impact on employer-sponsored retiree health plans, such as those offering extended health care coverage in the form of a Medicare bridge (coverage until Medicare eligibility at age 65). That policy had provided that retiree health plans reduced or eliminated on the basis of age or Medicare eligibility violate the ADEA.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

INDEX OF EEOC STATISTICAL CHARTS

Charge Receipts by Type and Percent of Total Charges
All Statutes - Receipts and Resolutions
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - All Receipts and Resolutions
Race Discrimination - Receipts and Resolutions
Sex Discrimination - Receipts and Resolutions
Sexual Harassment - Receipts and Resolutions
National Origin Discrimination - Receipts and Resolutions
Pregnancy Discrimination - Receipts and Resolutions
Religious Discrimination - Receipts and Resolutions
Americans with Disabilities Act - Receipts and Resolutions
Age Discrimination in Employment Act - Receipts and Resolutions
Equal Pay Act - Receipts and Resolutions
Litigation Statistics

Charge Receipts by Type and Percent of Total Charges
Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
TOTAL CHARGES	77,444	79,896	80,840
RACE	28,819	28,945	28,912
	37.3%	36.2%	35.8%
SEX	23,907	25,194	25,140
	30.9%	31.5%	31.1%
NATIONAL ORIGIN	7,108	7,792	8,025
	9.2%	9.8%	9.9%
RELIGION	1,811	1,939	2,127
	2.3%	2.4%	2.6%
AGE	14,141	16,008	17,405
	18.3%	20.0%	21.5%
DISABILITY	17,007	15,864	16,470
	22.0%	19.9%	20.4%
EQUAL PAY	1,044	1,270	1,251
	1.3%	1.6%	1.5%

All Statutes
Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	77,444	79,896	80,840
RESOLUTIONS	97,846	93,672	90,106
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	6,094	7,937	7,330
	6.2%	8.5%	8.1%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	3,593	3,753	3,654
	3.7%	4.0%	4.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	23,570	19,156	18,636
	24.1%	20.5%	20.7%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	58,174	54,578	51,562
	59.5%	58.3%	57.2%
REASONABLE CAUSE	6,415	8,248	8,924
	6.6%	8.8%	9.9%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	1,578	2,040	2,365
	1.6%	2.2%	2.6%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	4,837	6,208	6,559
	4.9%	6.6%	7.3%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	16,102	19,938	19,908
	16.5%	21.3%	22.1%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$210.5	$245.7	$247.8

*The total of individual percentages may not always equal 100 percent due to rounding. Data in this chart, compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning, were taken from EEOC's Charge Data System - National Data Base.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Charges

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	57,582	59,588	59,631
RESOLUTIONS	59,085	57,136	54,549
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	3,748	4,828	4,493
	6.3%	8.5%	8.2%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	2,084	2,251	2,201
	3.5%	3.9%	4.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	14,265	11,439	10,766
	24.1%	20.0%	19.7%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	35,614	33,822	32,075
	60.3%	59.2%	58.8%
REASONABLE CAUSE	3,374	4,796	5,014
	5.7%	8.4%	9.2%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	859	1,091	1,177
	1.5%	1.9%	2.2%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	2,515	3,705	3,837
	4.3%	6.5%	7.0%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	9,206	11,875	11,708
	15.6%	20.8%	21.5%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$113.1	$142.4	$141.1

Race-Based Charges (Title VII)
Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	28,819	28,945	28,912
RESOLUTIONS	35,094	33,188	32,077
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	2,138	2,802	2,549
	6.1%	8.4%	7.9%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	1,036	1,150	1,203
	3.0%	3.5%	3.8%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	7,213	5,727	5,626
	20.6%	17.3%	17.5%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	23,148	21,319	20,302
	66.0%	64.2%	63.3%
REASONABLE CAUSE	1,559	2,190	2,397
	4.4%	6.6%	7.5%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	382	529	691
	1.1%	1.6%	2.2%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	1,177	1,661	1,706
	3.4%	5.0%	5.3%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	4,733	6,142	6,149
	13.5%	18.5%	19.2%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$53.2	$61.7	$86.5

Sex-Based Charges (Title VII)
Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	23,907	25,194	25,140
RESOLUTIONS	30,643	29,631	28,602
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	1,988	2,644	2,404
	6.5%	8.9%	8.4%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	1,269	1,332	1,321
	4.1%	4.5%	4.6%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	8,747	6,897	6,391
	28.5%	23.3%	22.3%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	16,689	15,980	15,654
	54.5%	53.9%	54.7%
REASONABLE CAUSE	1,950	2,778	2,832
	6.4%	9.4%	9.9%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	535	707	739
	1.7%	2.4%	2.6%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	1,415	2,071	2,093
	4.6%	7.0%	7.3%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	5,207	6,754	6,557
	17.0%	22.8%	22.9%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$81.7	$109.0	$94.4

Sexual Harassment Charges
EEOC & FEPAs Combined: Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	15,222	15,836	15,475
PERCENT OF CHARGES FILED BY MALES	12.1%	13.6%	13.7%
RESOLUTIONS	16,524	16,726	16,383
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE
SETTLEMENTS	1,361	1,676	1,568
	8.2%	10.0%	9.6%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	1,299	1,389	1,454
	7.9%	8.3%	8.9%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	5,401	4,628	4,293
	32.7%	27.7%	26.2%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	7,272	7,370	7,309
	44.0%	44.1%	44.6%
REASONABLE CAUSE	1,180	1,659	1,746
	7.1%	9.9%	10.7%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	383	524	551
	2.3%	3.1%	3.4%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	797	1,135	1,195
	4.8%	6.8%	7.3%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	3,840	4,724	4,768
	23.2%	28.2%	29.1%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$50.3	$54.6	$53.0

National Origin-Based Charges (Title VII)
Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	7,108	7,792	8,025
RESOLUTIONS	8,750	8,691	8,899
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	458	630	668
	5.2%	7.2%	7.5%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	280	276	341
	3.2%	3.2%	3.8%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	2,087	1,538	1,448
	23.9%	17.7%	16.3%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	5,486	5,502	5,461
	62.7%	63.3%	61.4%
REASONABLE CAUSE	439	745	981
	5.0%	8.6%	11.0%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	98	159	229
	1.1%	1.8%	2.6%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	341	586	752
	3.9%	6.7%	8.5%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	1,177	1,651	1,990
	13.5%	19.0%	22.4%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$19.7	$15.7	$48.1

Pregnancy Discrimination Charges
EEOC & FEPAs Combined: Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	4,166	4,160	4,287
RESOLUTIONS	4,343	4,480	4,280
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE
SETTLEMENTS	505	602	518
	11.6%	13.4%	12.1%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	359	322	327
	8.3%	7.2%	7.6%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	897	821	761
	20.7%	18.3%	17.8%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	2,389	2,452	2,373
	55.0%	54.7%	55.4%
REASONABLE CAUSE	188	280	298
	4.3%	6.3%	7.0%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	81	110	123
	1.9%	2.5%	2.9%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	107	170	175
	2.5%	3.8%	4.1%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	1,052	1,204	1,143
	24.2%	26.9%	26.7%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$6.7	$20.6	$7.5

Religion-Based Charges (Title VII)
Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	1,811	1,939	2,127
RESOLUTIONS	2,187	2,230	2,217
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	144	156	182
	6.6%	7.0%	8.2%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	87	94	77
	4.0%	4.2%	3.5%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	532	429	382
	24.3%	19.2%	17.2%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	1,269	1,343	1,349
	58.0%	60.2%	60.8%
REASONABLE CAUSE	155	208	227
	7.1%	9.3%	10.2%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	42	56	43
	1.9%	2.5%	1.9%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	113	152	184
	5.2%	6.8%	8.3%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	386	458	486
	17.7%	20.5%	21.9%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$3.1	$5.5	$14.1

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Charges Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	17,007	15,864	16,470
RESOLUTIONS	22,152	20,475	19,084
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	1,433	1,852	1,722
	6.5%	9.0%	9.0%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	867	862	834
	3.9%	4.2%	4.4%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	5,434	4,209	3,662
	24.5%	20.6%	19.2%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	12,753	11,431	10,332
	57.6%	55.8%	54.1%
REASONABLE CAUSE	1,665	2,121	2,534
	7.5%	10.4%	13.3%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	518	663	741
	2.3%	3.2%	3.9%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	1,147	1,458	1,793
	5.2%	7.1%	9.4%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	3,965	4,835	5,090
	17.9%	23.6%	26.7%
MONETARY BENEFITS (Millions)	$55.8	$54.4	$47.9

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) Charges
Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	14,141	16,008	17,405
RESOLUTIONS	15,448	14,672	15,155
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	816	1,156	1,006
	5.3%	7.9%	6.6%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	578	560	551
	3.7%	3.8%	3.6%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	3,601	3,232	3,963
	23.3%	22.0%	26.1%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	9,172	8,517	8,388
	59.4%	58.0%	55.3%
REASONABLE CAUSE	1,281	1,207	1,247
	8.3%	8.2%	8.2%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	184	241	409
	1.2%	1.6%	2.7%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	1,097	966	838
	7.1%	6.6%	5.5%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	2,675	2,923	2,804
	17.3%	19.9%	18.5%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)	$38.6	$45.2	$53.7

Equal Pay Act (EPA) Charges
(includes concurrent charges with Title VII, ADEA, and ADA)
Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001

	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
RECEIPTS	1,044	1,270	1,251
RESOLUTIONS	1,026	1,235	1,158
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE*
SETTLEMENTS	89	80	96
	8.7%	6.5%	8.3%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS	58	70	62
	5.7%	5.7%	5.4%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES	226	250	201
	22.0%	20.2%	17.4%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE	565	716	679
	55.1%	58.0%	58.6%
REASONABLE CAUSE	88	119	120
	8.6%	9.6%	10.4%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	15	45	37
	1.5%	3.6%	3.2%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS	73	74	83
	7.1%	6.0%	7.2%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS	235	269	278
	22.9%	21.8%	24.0%
MONETARY BENEFITS (Millions)	$2.9	$3.6	$5.1

Litigation Statistics
Fiscal Year 1999

	CUMULATIVE OCTOBER 1, 1998 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
TOTAL LAWSUITS FILED	464
Direct Suits and Interventions ¹	437
Title VII	325
ADEA	41
ADA ²	51
EPA	3
Concurrent	17
Subpoena Enforcement & Other Actions ³	27
LITIGATION RESOLUTION TOTAL	349
Direct Suits and Interventions	319
Title VII	192
ADEA	41
ADA	65
EPA	0
Concurrent	21
Subpoena Enforcement & Other Actions	30
MONETARY BENEFITS FROM LITIGATION (dollars in millions)	$98.4
Title VII	$49.2
ADEA	$42.5
ADA	$2.9
EPA	$0.3
Concurrent	$3.5

1 Includes interventions (lawsuits joined by EEOC that were filed by private plaintiffs)

2 Title I of the ADA became effective July 1992

3 Includes reporting and recordkeeping violations as well as temporary restraining orders

Litigation Statistics
Fiscal Year 2000

	CUMULATIVE OCTOBER 1, 1999 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
TOTAL LAWSUITS FILED	328
Direct Suits and Interventions ¹	290
Title VII	222
ADEA	27
ADA ²	23
EPA	3
Concurrent	15
Subpoena Enforcement & Other Actions ³	38
LITIGATION RESOLUTION TOTAL	438
Direct Suits and Interventions	405
Title VII	305
ADEA	35
ADA	52
EPA	4
Concurrent	9
Subpoena Enforcement & Other Actions	33
MONETARY BENEFITS FROM LITIGATION (dollars in millions)	$49.8
Title VII	$35.1
ADEA	$11.2
ADA	$3.0
EPA	$.2
Concurrent	$.3

1 Includes interventions (lawsuits joined by EEOC that were filed by private plaintiffs)

2 Title I of the ADA became effective July 1992

3 Includes reporting and recordkeeping violations as well as temporary restraining orders

Litigation Statistics
Fiscal Year 2001

	CUMULATIVE OCTOBER 1, 2000 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2001
TOTAL LAWSUITS FILED	430
Direct Suits and Interventions¹	385
Title VII	269
ADEA	32
ADA ²	62
EPA	5
Concurrent	17
Subpoena Enforcement & Other Actions³	45
LITIGATION RESOLUTION TOTAL	360
Direct Suits and Interventions	319
Title VII	219
ADEA	34
ADA	42
EPA	6
Concurrent	18
Subpoena Enforcement & Other Actions	41
MONETARY BENEFITS FROM LITIGATION (dollars in millions)	$51.2
Title VII	$29.8
ADEA	$3.1
ADA	$2.2
EPA	$15.8
Concurrent	$.3

1 Includes interventions (lawsuits joined by EEOC that were filed by private plaintiffs)

2 Title I of the ADA became effective July 1992

3 Includes reporting and recordkeeping violations as well as temporary restraining orders

Appendix B TERMS OF EEOC COMMISSIONERS

Chairmen in bold

Year	Term One	Term Two	Term Three	Term Four	Term Five
EEOC Established July 2, 1965	Richard Graham Confirmed July 26	Franklin Roosevelt, Jr. Confirmed May 26	Samuel C. Jackson Confirmed May 26	Luther Holcomb Confirmed May 26	Vacant
1966	Graham Term expired July 1	Roosevelt Resigned May 11 Stephen Schulman Confirmed Sept. 14	Jackson	Holcomb	Aileen Hernandez Confirmed May 26 Resigned Nov. 10
1967	Vincent T. Ximenes Confirmed June 11	Schulman Term expired July 1 Clifford Alexander Confirmed Aug. 4	Jackson	Holcomb	Vacant
1968	Ximenes	Alexander	Jackson Term expired July 1	Holcomb	Elizabeth Kuck Confirmed Jan. 26
1969	Ximenes	Alexander Resigned May 1	William H. Brown Confirmed May 5	Holcomb Reappointed May 2	Kuck
1970	Ximenes	Colston Lewis Confirmed July 24	Brown	Holcomb	Kuck Term expired July 1
1971	Ximenes Term expired July 1 Raymond Telles Confirmed Sept. 30	Lewis	Brown	Holcomb	Ethel B. Walsh Confirmed May 3
1972	Telles	Lewis Reappointed Nov. 9	Brown	Holcomb	Walsh
1973	Telles	Lewis	Brown Resigned Dec. 23 John H. Powell Confirmed Dec. 28	Holcomb	Walsh
1974	Telles	Lewis	Powell	Holcomb Resigned Sept. 10	Walsh
1975	Telles	Lewis	Powell Resigned March 18 Lowell Perry Confirmed May 21	Vacant	Walsh Reappointed Dec. 8
1976	Telles Reappointed Aug. 31 Resigned Oct. 2	Lewis	Perry Resigned May 15	Daniel E. Leach Confirmed March 3	Walsh
1977	Eleanor Holmes Norton Confirmed May 27	Lewis Term expired July 1	Vacant	Leach	Walsh
1978	Norton	J. Clay Smith Confirmed Oct. 10	Armando Rodriguez Confirmed Oct. 10	Leach	Walsh
1979	Norton	Smith	Rodriguez	Leach	Walsh Reappointed July 26
1980	Norton	Smith	Rodriguez	Leach	Walsh Resigned Dec. 16
1981	Norton Resigned Feb. 21	Smith*	Rodriguez	Leach Resigned Sept. 30	Cathie Shattuck* Recess appt. Dec. 18
1982	Clarence Thomas Confirmed May 6	Smith* Resigned March 4 William Webb Confirmed Oct. 1	Rodriguez	Tony E. Gallegos Confirmed April 14	Shattuck* Confirmed March 2
1983	Thomas	Webb	Rodriguez Term expired July 1	Gallegos	Shattuck Resigned April 15
1984	Thomas	Webb	Fred Alvarez Confirmed May 11	Gallegos Reconfirmed Sept. 25	R. Gaull Silberman Recess appt. Nov. 27
1985	Thomas	Webb	Alvarez	Gallegos	Silberman Confirmed May 24
1986	Thomas Reconfirmed Aug. 12	Webb Resigned Sept. 15	Alvarez	Gallegos	Silberman
1987	Thomas	Evan J. Kemp, Jr. Confirmed June 19	Alvarez Resigned June 30 Joy Cherian Confirmed Oct. 13	Gallegos	Silberman
1988	Thomas	Kemp	Cherian Reconfirmed Sept. 23	Gallegos	Silberman
1989	Thomas	Kemp	Cherian	Gallegos Recess appt. Nov. 21	Silberman
1990	Thomas Resigned March 8 Joyce E. Tucker Confirmed Sept. 27	Kemp (Designated Chair March 8)	Cherian	Gallegos Reconfirmed March 1	Silberman Reconfirmed July 20
1991	Tucker Reconfirmed Aug. 1	Kemp	Cherian	Gallegos	Silberman
1992	Tucker	Kemp Recess appt. Oct. 13	Cherian	Gallegos	Silberman
1993	Tucker	Kemp Resigned April 2	Cherian Term expired July 1	Gallegos*	Silberman
1994	Tucker	Paul M. Igasaki Confirmed Sept. 29	Paul Steven Miller Confirmed Sept. 29	Gallegos* Term expired July 1 Gilbert F. Casellas Confirmed Sept. 29	Silberman
1995	Tucker	Igasaki	Miller	Casellas	Silberman Term expired July 1
1996	Tucker Term expired July 1	Igasaki	Miller	Casellas	Reginald E. Jones Confirmed July 17
1997	Vacant	Igasaki Term expired July 1	Miller	Casellas Resigned Dec. 31	Jones
1998	Vacant	Igasaki* Recess appt. Dec. 16	Miller Term expired July 1 Ida L. Castro Confirmed Oct. 21	Paul Steven Miller Reconfirmed Oct. 21	Jones
1999	Vacant	Igasaki	Castro	Miller Term expired July 1 Reconfirmed Nov. 22	Jones
2000	Vacant	Igasaki	Castro	Miller	Jones Term expired July 1 Resigned Oct. 15
2001	Cari M. Dominguez Confirmed July 19	Igasaki	Castro Resigned Aug. 10	Miller	Vacant

* Served as Acting Chairman

Appendix C EEOC GENERAL COUNSELS

As originally enacted in 1964, Title VII did not provide for a General Counsel. Section 705(a) of the Act, however, permitted the EEOC Chairman to appoint attorneys, and a General Counsel's position was created. Prior to 1972, three General Counsels were appointed by the Chairman:

Charles T. Duncan, August 1965 October 1966
Daniel Steiner, December 1967 July 1969
Stanley P. Hebert, December 1969 August 1971

Four persons served as Acting General Counsel prior to the creation of an independent General Counsel:

Richard Berg, October 1966 May 1967
Kenneth F. Holbert, May 1967 - December 1967
Russell Spector, July 1969 December 1969
John de J. Pemberton, August 1971 June 1972

In 1972 Congress amended Title VII and passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. With the passage of this Act, Congress established an independent General Counsel to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To date, eight Commission General Counsels have served in this capacity:

William A. Carey, June 1972 - March 1975
Abner W. Sibal, July 1975 - December 1978
Leroy D. Clark, July 1979 - January 1981
Michael J. Connolly, November 1981 - September 1982
David L. Slate, January 1983 - June 1984
Charles A. Shanor, March 1987 - June 1990
Donald R. Livingston, November 1991 - June 1993
Clifford Gregory Stewart, July 1995 - May 2001

Since the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, seven individuals have served as Acting General Counsel at the designation of the Chairman in the absence of a confirmed General Counsel:

Julia P. Cooper, March 1975 - July 1975
Issie L. Jenkins, January 1979 - July 1979
Constance L. Dupre, June 1981 - October 1981
Michael N. Martinez, September 1982 - December 1982
Johnny J. Butler, June 1984 - March 1987
Donald R. Livingston, June 1990 - November 1991
John P. Rowe, March 1995 - July 1995

This page was last modified on November 25, 2002.

Return to Home Page

Combined Annual Reports Fiscal Years 1999- 2001 (October 1, 1998, through September 30, 2001)

Table of Contents

APPENDICES

INDEX OF EEOC STATISTICAL CHARTS

Appendix B TERMS OF EEOC COMMISSIONERS

Appendix C EEOC GENERAL COUNSELS

Combined Annual Reports Fiscal Years 1999- 2001
(October 1, 1998, through September 30, 2001)