Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "24822425",
    "label": "Parental Discrimination Legislation",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/24822425"
}

{
    "id": "24822425",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/24822425",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Parental Discrimination Legislation",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/24822425",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)",
        "Nicole Rabner's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2022/Batch0007/42-t-7763278-20121035S-014-009-2015.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2022/Batch0007/42-t-7763278-20121035S-014-009-2015.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2022/Batch0007/42-t-7763278-20121035S-014-009-2015.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/24822425",
    "naId": 24822425,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7763278-20121035S-014-009-2015"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2022/Batch0007/42-t-7763278-20121035S-014-009-2015.pdf",
    "mediaId": "bc6ce06bf54ebca0",
    "ocrText": "0025244 WPD\nPage 1\nPresident's Proposal to Prohibit Discrimination Against Parents\nApril 18, 1999\nQ:\nWhat is the President's proposal on parental discrimination?\nA.\nThe President will send Congress legislation that prohibits discrimination on\nthe basis of parental status in employment. The proposed legislation would\nprotect those who choose to have a family from discrimination in\nemployment, in hiring, advancement, and other employment decisions,\nbecause of their status as parents. This legislation would protect parents of\nchildren and those seeking legal custody of children.\nThe President's proposed federal legislation would offer protection to\nworkers who are parents in a number of situations. It would prohibit\nemployers from taking a mother or father off career-advancing paths (e.g.,\npartnership track) out of some generalized belief that parents as a class are\nnot capable of committing to the work requirements of the job. It would also\nprohibit employers from hiring a person without children over an equally or\nmore qualified person with children. In general, the President's proposal\nwould protect workers from unfair assumptions about their commitment to\ntheir jobs in hiring, advancement, and other employment decisions. While\nthis law would clearly not prohibit employers from making hiring and\npromotion decisions on the basis of job performance, it would ensure that\nworkers are not unfairly discriminated against simply because they are\nparents.\nQ:\nWhat evidence do you have that discrimination against parents in the\nworkplace is a problem?\nA:\nDespite the fact that there is currently no cause of action for parental\ndiscrimination, we have found numerous cases in which employees describe\ninstances of discrimination due to their status as parents. The precise extent\nof this problem is unknown at this time, but however great or small, it\ndeserves a remedy. This form of discrimination should simply not take place\nat all and that is why the President has proposed this simple, but clear\nprohibition.\nQ:\nHow do you respond to the argument by opponents of the measure that this\nproposal will cause an avalanche of litigation in the courts?\nA:\nOpponents of this proposal have argued both that employers do not\n~0025244 WPD\nPage 2\ndiscriminate on the basis of parental status and that this proposal will cause\nan explosion of litigation. It is difficult to see how the President's proposal\nwill do both. Because the President's proposal only prohibits discrimination\non the basis of disparate treatment (not disparate impact), plaintiffs will be\nrequired to show direct evidence of discrimination, which is a difficult burden\nin employment discrimination cases. Therefore, there is no reason to think\nthat the creation of this cause of action will produce unnecessary and\nunwarranted litigation.\nQ:\nAren't you radically changing the rules of the workplace, if parents can now\nsue when they're required to work overtime or when they are required to\nmove?\nA.\nThe President's proposal does not do that. This law would clearly not\nprohibit employers from making hiring and promotion decisions on the basis\nof job performance, and therefore, does not protect parents who are treated\nas every other employee. If all employees are required to work overtime,\nthen employees who are parents can be required to work overtime. The\nPresident's proposal simply protects workers who are parents from unfair\nassumptions about their commitment or capacity to work.\n)\n04/20/99 01:55 FAX 202 456 6218\nOPL\n001\nFamily- parental discrimination\nCC Bruce\nNicule/Neera\n(et.'s do\nsume for Thing\nThe weekly\noujesting\nanother\nevent (ca\nvadio ad 2\nWHITE HOUSE\ndress) SUL-\nvounding\ninheduction\nOFFICE OF PUBLIC LIAISON\n9 the\nbill\nElena\nPhone (202)456-2930 Fax (202)456-6218\nPage: One of 2\nDate: 04/20/99\n\"\nTo: ELENA KAGEN\nFax 6-2878\nPhone:\nFrom:\nMARY BETH CAHILL\nComments:\n04/20/99 01:55 FAX 202 456 6218\nOPL\n002\nToo (cc N Peur\nmary BEEN we mul\n4-19-99\nto get Tu is was run-\ncapied\nBe\nmary Beth Calm\nMark Penn\nPodesta\nClinton Seeks to Give Parents Standing\nTo Create Basis for Discrimination Suits\nBy JEANNE CUMMINGS\ntheir blases.\"\nStaff Reporter of THE WALL. STREET JOURNAL\nMr. Clinton announced his Intention to\nWASHINGTON-Renewing its court-\nintroduce such legislation in his State of\nship with \"soccer moms\" as the presiden-\nthe Union address: he recently expanded\ntial campaign approaches. the Clinton ad-\nhis fund-raising stump speech to signal\nministration will seek to create a broad\nthat helping parents will be a major theme\nnew basis for job-discrimination lawsuits\nfor Democrats in next year's elections.\nby classifying parents as a \"protected\n\"We have not done enough in the U.S. to\nclass.\"\nhelp people balance work and family,' the\nUnder the proposal, parents would have\npresident said Friday night at a Boston De-\nthe same standing to file discrimination\nmocratic Party event.\ncases as those who already fall under the\nThe message dovetalls with Vice Presi-\nlegally protected classes of race, sex, age.\ndent Al Gore's urban-sprawl initiative,\nreligion or disability. Legislation will be\nwhich is aimed at reducing the time par-\nsponsored by Democratic Sen. Christopher\nents spend in traffic jams and creating\nDodd of Connecticut and is expected by the\nmore green space for families to enjoy.\nend of the month.\nAlthough the antidiscrimination pro-\nBusiness groups oppose the plan. argu-\nposal probably will face a frosty reception\ning that it could prompt a flood of lawsuits\nin the GOP-controlled Congress. the elec-\nwhen there is little evidence that a problem\ntion-year dynamics could make opposition\nexists. They say disgruntled or poor-per-\nrisky.\nforming employees could exploit the new\nPresident Clinton's education propos-\nlegal standing.\nals and criticism of former President Bush\nBut White House Domestic Policy Ad-\nfor vetoing the Family and Medical Leave\nviser Bruce Reed says it is the product of\nAct helped him tap the middle-class soccer-\n\"real cases.\" Among them is a New Jersey\nmom vote in 1992. The Family and Medical\nwoman who claimed she was passed over\nLeave Act became the first bill signed into\nfor promotions because she is a mother. A\nlaw by Mr. Clinton. The administration\nNew York federal judge rejected her law-\nthis year is expected to try to expand the\nsuit, saying the person who was pro-\nnow-popular law. which allows workers to\nmoted-who had no children-was of the\ntake time off without pay to help sick or dis-\nsame sex.\nabled relatives.\nThe White House acknowledges that Its\nThe White House is making no secret of\nevidence is anecdotal, but Mr. Reed says\nits intention to make the fate of the parent\nthat because such discrimination isn't ille-\nantidiscrimination proposal an issue next\ngal. ''it is impossible to tell how many\nyear. \"A truly pro-family Congress would\ncases there will be. Like most cases of dis-\npass this in a heartbeat,\" Mr. Reed says.\ncrimination. employers don't advertise\n\"We'll see.\"\nTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL\nMONDAY, APRIL 19, 1999\nQ&AFAMD.417\nPage 1\nPresident's Proposal to Prohibit Discrimination Against Parents\nApril 18, 1999\nQ:\nWhat is the President's proposal on parental discrimination?\nA.\nThe President will send Congress legislation that prohibits discrimination on\nthe basis of parental status in employment. The proposed legislation would\nprotect those who choose to have a family from discrimination in\nemployment, both in the character of their job and in terms of hiring and\nadvancement, because of their status as parents. This legislation would\nprotect parents of children and those seeking legal custody of children.\nThe President's proposed federal legislation would offer protection to\nworkers who are parents in a number of situations. It would prohibit\nemployers from taking a taking a mother or father off career-advancing paths\n(e.g., partnership track) out of some belief that parents as a class are not\ncapable of committing to the work requirements of the job, though there is\nno discernable difference in the work product of those employees who are\nparents. It would also prohibit employers from hiring a woman without\nchildren over a more qualified man with children because the hired employee\ndid not have children. In general, the President's proposal would protect\nworkers from unfair assumptions about their commitment to their job that\ncan affect hiring, advancement and other employment decisions. While this\nlaw would clearly not prohibit employers from making hiring and promotion\ndecisions on the basis of job performance, it would ensure that workers are\nnot unfairly discriminated against simply because they are parents.\nQ:\nWhat evidence do you have that discrimination against parents in the\nworkplace is a problem?\nA:\nDespite the fact that there is currently no cause of action for parental\ndiscrimination, we have found a number of cases in which employees\ndescribe instances of discrimination due to their status as parents.\nTherefore, though the problem may not be rampant, it is a problem that\ndeserves a remedy. This form of discrimination should simply not take place\nand that is why the President has proposed this simple, but clear prohibition.\nQ:\nHow do you respond to the argument by opponents of the measure that this\nproposal will cause an avalanche of litigation in the courts?\nA:\nOpponents of this proposal have argued both that employers do not\ndiscriminate on the basis of parental status and that this proposal will cause\nQ&AFAMD.417\nPage 2\nan explosion of litigation. It is difficult to see how the President's proposal\nwill do both. In fact, because the President's proposal only prohibits\ndiscrimination on the basis of disparate treatment, not disparate impact,\nplaintiffs will be required to show direct evidence of discrimination against\nthemselves, an often difficult burden in employment discrimination cases.\nTherefore, there is no reason to think it will cause unnecessary litigation.\nIndeed, only if this is a rampant, pervasive problem would it cause an\n'avalanche' of litigation.\nQ:\nAren't you radically changing the rules of the workplace, if parents can now\nsue if they're required to work overtime or if they are required to move?\nA.\nThe President's proposal does not do that. This law would clearly not\nprohibit employers from making hiring and promotion decisions on the basis\nof job performance, and therefore, does not protect parents who are treated\nas every other employee. If all employees are required to work overtime,\nthen employees who are parents can be required to work overtime. The\nPresident's proposal simply protects workers who are parents from unfair\nassumptions about their commitment or capacity to work.\nDRAFT BILL RE PARENTAL STATUS DISCRIMINATION\nSection 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this act,\n(a) the terms Temployers %employee Temployment agency\nlabor organization complaining party\nperson,\nState,\ncommerce, $industry affecting commerce,\ndemonstrates,\nand\nrespondent will have the meaning as defined in Title VII of the\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. $2000e.\n(b) the term Sparental status means the status of\nbiological, adopted, or foster parent, stepparent, or standing in\nloco parentis, to a son or daughter who is under 18 years of age\nor 18 years of age of older and incapable of self-care because of\na mental or physical disability.\nSection 2\nUnlawful Employment Practices\n(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an\nemployer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any\nindividual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual\nwith regard to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges\nof employment because of such person's parental status.\n(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an\nemployment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or\notherwise to discriminate against any individuals because of his\nor her parental status or to classify or refer for employment any\nindividual because of his or her parental status.\n(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor\norganization to fail or refuse to refer for employment any\nindividual because of such individual's parental status.\n(d) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an\nemployer, employment agency, or labor organization to\ndiscriminate against any individual because he or she has opposed\nany employment practice made unlawful under this act, or because\nhe or she has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated\nin any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under\nthis act.\n(e) Nothing in this act shall be interpreted to require any\nemployer, employment agency, or labor organization to collect or\nreport information about the parental status of its employees,\nnor to require that any employer, employment agency, or labor\norganization grant preferential treatment to any individual\nbecause of his or her parental status.\nSection 3\nEnforcement and Remedies\n(a) The powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in\nsections 705, 706, 707, 709, and 710 of the Civil Rights Act of\n1964 (42 U.S.C. $2000e-4, 2000e-5, 2000e-6, 2000e-8, and 2000e-9)\nshall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this title provides\nto the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to the Attorney\nGeneral, or to any person alleging a violation of any provision\nof this Act.\n(b) Every employer, employment agency, and labor\norganization shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places\nupon its premises where notices to employees, applicant for\nemployment, and members are customarily posted a notice setting\nforth excerpts from or summaries of the pertinent provisions of\nthis act and information pertinent to the filing of a complaint.\nA willful violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine\nof not more than $100 for each separate offense.\n(c) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall be\nempowered to promulgate regulations implementing the provisions\nof this act.\nProblemy Discrim. against Parents\nro reasonche\naccount\nFam - get pregram PDA luskad\nDisparak treatment - intentional\nDispank impact - rental on fale -have an impat.\n(need atatistics (data\nno frotas prif treatment\nduty to reasonsibility accom\nnariow group of discrimunation - make a\ndec { anto -discrim) based on The notine that a parent.\nwhen\nbenefits-include benefits include\nclass of items\nHelen: erv on > 8 upler - not\nhealth ins.\nRel - excemption,\n2\nTitle vn, ENDA have exceptions\nProhibiting Discrimination Against Parents\nPolicy: We propose that the Administration introduce legislation that prohibits discrimination on\nthe basis of family status in employment, both in terms of hiring and advancement. Family\npreg-\nstatus would cover parents of children, women who are pregnant and those seeking legal custody\nPDA\nof children. The animating principle of this policy is that those who choose to have a family\nshould not be discriminated against in employment, both in the character of their job and in terms\nof hiring and advancement, because of their status as parents.\nRather than amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, we propose to put forward legislation that\nstands alone. As is the case with the Americans with Disabilities Act as enacted and the\nEmployment Non-Discrimation Act as proposed, such legislation would contain the mandate that\nprohibits employment discrimination against parents, though it would refer to definititions\nand clauses within Title VII.\nExamples of conduct:\nEmployers who take women who are parents off career-advancing paths (e.g., partnership\ntrack) out of some belief that parents as a class are not capable of committing to the work\nrequirements of the job, though there is no discernable difference in the work product of\nthose employees who are women and parents.\nThe hiring of a woman without children over a more qualified woman with children\nbecause the hired employee did not have children.\nBackground:\nProhibiting employment discirmination ased on parental of family status is the law of some states\nand many municipalities. (Federal law currently prohibits discrimination based on family status\nin the provision of Housing. See Fair Housing Act.) For example, New Jersey law states that\n\"All persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment property without discrimination\nbecause of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual\norientation, familial status, or sex, subject only to conditions and limitations applicable alike to\nall persons. This opportunity is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. (Stat. @ 10:5-4\n(1998)) In addition, Michigan law states, \"The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and\nother real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and\neducational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin,\nage, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized\nand declared to be a civil right. \"(MCL @ 37.2102; MSA @ 3.548(102) (1998)) In addition, a\nnumber of municipalities prohibit employment discrimination based on family status, including\nthe District of Columbia, New York, Miami-Dade County, and Pittsburgh.\nConcerns:\nSuch legislation could raise the profile of the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA), a\nbill outlawing discrimination in hiring, firing and promotions based on sexual orientation, as gay\nand lesbian groups may demand that the Administration make ENDA a priority over any new\ncivil right.\nOther issues:\nA number of issues still require resolution, including:\nWhether disparate impact analysis would apply in such a statute?\nWhether such a prohibition would apply in the provision of benefits?\nHow to ensure such a statute would not apply to the detriment of workers with families?\nEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION\nMASSACHUSETTS\nPregnancy Discrimination Charges\nEEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1991 - FY 1998\nFY 1991\nFY 1992\nFY 1993\nFY 1994\nFY 1995\nFY 1996\nFY 1997\nFY 1998\nRECEIPTS\n3,000\n3,385\n3,577\n4,170\n4,191\n3,743\n3,977\n4,219\nRESOLUTIONS\n3,135\n3,045\n3,145\n3,181\n3,908\n4,186\n4,595\n4,467\nRESOLUTIONS BY TYPE\nSETTLEMENTS\n580\n457\n420\n373\n440\n388\n395\n424\n18.5%\n15.0%\n13.4%\n11.7%\n11.3%\n9.3%\n8.6%\n9.5%\nWITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS\n245\n237\n311\n341\n362\n323\n379\n328\n7.8%\n7.8%\n9.9%\n10.7%\n9.3%\n7.7%\n8.2%\n7.3%\nADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES\n671\n762\n756\n920\n1,155\n1,098\n1,103\n1,026\n21.4%\n25.0%\n24.0%\n28.9%\n29.6%\n26.2%\n24.0%\n23.0%\nNO REASONABLE CAUSE\n1,518\n1,497\n1,552\n1,435\n1,851\n2,276\n2,432\n2,534\n48.4%\n49.2%\n49.3%\n45.1%\n47.4%\n54.4%\n52.9%\n56.7%\nREASONABLE CAUSE\n114\n87\n104\n104\n96\n97\n279\n154\n3.6%\n2.9%\n3.3%\n3.3%\n2.5%\n2.3%\n6.1%\n3.5%\nSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS\n77\n56\n62\n60\n51\n55\n71\n66\n2.5%\n1.8%\n2.0%\n1.9%\n1.3%\n1.3%\n1.5%\n1.5%\nUNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS\n37\n31\n42\n44\n45\n42\n208\n88\n1.2%\n1.0%\n1.3%\n1.4%\n1.2%\n1.0%\n4.5%\n2.0%\nMERIT RESOLUTIONS\n939\n781\n835\n818\n898\n808\n1,053\n906\n30.0%\n25.6%.\n26.6%\n25.7%\n23.0%\n19.3%\n22.9%\n20.3%\nversus\nMONETARY BENEFITS (millions)\n$3.8\n$3.7\n$3.9\n$4.0\n$4.7\n$4.1\n$5.6\n$5.3\n12 4 %\nData compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from EEOC's Charge Data System National Data Base.\noverall\nThe total of individual percentages may not always sum to 100% due to rounding.\n11/25/98\nDEFINITIONS OF TERMS\nAdministrative Closure - Charge closed for administrative reasons, which include: failure to locate charging party, charging party failed to respond to\nEEOC communications, charging party refused to accept full relief, closed due to the outcome of related litigation which establishes a precedent that makes\nfurther processing of the charge futile, charging party requests withdrawal of a charge without receiving benefits or having resolved the issue, no statutory\njurisdiction.\nFEPAs - Fair Employment Practices Agencies are state and local agencies with which EEOC has contractual worksharing agreements to process\nemployment discrimination charges.\nMerit Resolutions - Charges with outcomes favorable to charging parties and/or charges with meritorious allegations. These include negotiated\nsettlements, withdrawals with benefits, successful conciliations, and unsuccessful conciliations.\nNo Reasonable Cause -- EEOC's determination of no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in\ninvestigation. The charging party may request a review of a no-cause finding by EEOC Headquarters officials and may exercise the right to bring private\ncourt action.\nReasonable Cause - EEOC's determination of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation.\nReasonable cause determinations are generally followed by efforts to conciliate the discriminatory issues which gave rise to the initial charge.\nNOTE: Some reasonable cause findings are resolved through negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and other types of resolutions, which are\nnot characterized as either successful or unsuccessful conciliations.\nSettlements (Negotiated) - Charges settled with benefits to the charging party as warranted by evidence of record. In such cases, EEOC and/or a FEPA\nis a party to the settlement agreement between the charging party and the respondent (an employer, union, or other entity covered by EEOC-enforced\nstatutes).\nSuccessful Conciliation - Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after successful conciliation. Successful conciliations result in substantial\nrelief to the charging party and all others adversely affected by the discrimination.\nUnsuccessful Conciliation - Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after efforts to conciliate the charge are unsuccessful. Pursuant to\nCommission policy, the field office will close the charge and review it for litigation consideration. NOTE: Because \"reasonable cause\" has been found,\nthis is considered a merit resolution.\nWithdrawal with Benefits - Charge is withdrawn by charging party upon receipt of desired benefits. The withdrawal may take place after a settlement\nor after the respondent grants the appropriate benefit to the charging party.\nCHARGE STATISTICS FROM THE\nU.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION\nFY 1991 THROUGH FY 1998\nFY 1991\nFY 1992\nFY 1993\nFY 1994\nFY 1995\nFY 1996\nFY 1997\nFY 1998\nTotal Charges no\n63,898\n72,302\n87,942\n91,189\n87,529\n77,990\n80,680\n79,591\nRace\n27,981\n29,548\n31,695\n31,656\n29,986\n26,287\n29,199\n28,820\n43.8%\n40.9%\n36.0%\n34.8%\n34.3%\n33.8%\n36.2%\n36.2%\nSex\n17,672\n21,796\n23,919\n25,860\n26,181\n23,813\n24,728\n24,454\n27.7%\n30.1%\n27.2%\n28.4%\n29.9%\n30.6%\n30.7%\n30.7%\nNational Origin\n6,692\n7,434\n7,454\n7,414\n7,035\n6,687\n6,712\n6,778\n10.5%\n10.3%\n8.5%\n8.1%\n8.0%\n8.6%\n8.3%\n8.5%\nReligion\n1,192\n1,388\n1,449\n1,546\n1,581\n1,564\n1,709\n1,786\n1.9%\n1.9%\n1.6%\n1.7%\n1.8%\n2.0%\n2.1%\n2.2%\nRetaliation\n7,906\n10,932\n12,644\n14,415\n15,342\n14,412\n18,113\n17,246\n12.4%\n15.1%\n14.4%\n15.8%\n17.5%\n18.5%\n22.5%\n21.7%\nAge\n17,550\n19,573\n19.809\n19,618\n17,416\n15,719\n15,785\n15,191\n27.5%\n27.1%\n22.5%\n21.5%\n19.9%\n20.2%\n19.6%\n19.1%\nDisability\nNA\n1,048\n15,274\n18,859\n19,798\n18,046\n18,108\n17,806\n1.4%\n17.4%\n20.7%\n22.6%\n23.1%\n22.4%\n22.4%\nEqual Pay Act\n1,187\n1,294\n1,328\n1,381\n1,275\n969\n1,134\n1,071\n1.9%\n1.8%\n1.5%\n1.5%\n1.5%\n1.2%\n1.4%\n1.3%\nNOTE:\nData compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from EEOC's Charge Data System quarterly reconciled Data Summary Reports.\nthe number for Total Charges reflects the number of individual charge filings Because individuals often file charges under multiple bases. the number of Total Charges for any given fiscal\nyear will be less than the total of the eight bases listed.\nEEOC began enfore ing the Americans with Disabilities Art on July 26, 1992\nUpdated 11/25/98\nSTATE\nEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION\nAll Statutes\nFY 1991 - FY 1998\nFY 1991\nFY 1992\nFY 1993\nFY 1994\nFY 1995\nFY 1996\nFY 1997\nFY 1998\nRECEIPTS\n63,898\n72,302\n87,942\n91,189\n87,529\n77,990\n80,680\n79,591\nRESOLUTIONS\n64,342\n68,366\n71,716\n71,563\n91,774\n103,467\n106,312\n101,470\nRESOLUTIONS BY TYPE\nSETTLEMENTS\n5,047\n4,348\n4,138\n3,938\n3,811\n3,163\n3,992\n4,646\n7.8%\n6.4%\n5.8%\n5.5%\n4.2%\n3.1%\n3.8%\n4.6%\nWITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS\n4,250\n4,673\n5,145\n5,236\n5,035\n4,009\n3,635\n3,219\n6.6%\n6.8%\n7.2%\n7.3%\n5.5%\n3.9%\n3.4%\n3.2%\nADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES\n14,941\n16,003\n20,285\n26,012\n34,153\n30,821\n30,077\n27,118\n23.2%\n23.4%\n28.3%\n36.3%\n37.2%\n29.8%\n28.3%\n26.7%\nNO REASONABLE CAUSE\n38,369\n41,736\n40,183\n34,451\n46,700\n63,216\n64,567\n61,794\n59.6%\n61.0%\n56.0%\n48.1%\n50.9%\n61.1%\n60.7%\n60.9%\nREASONABLE CAUSE\n1,735\n1,606\n1,965\n1,926\n2,075\n2,258\n4,041\n4,693\n2.7%\n2.3%\n2.7%\n2.7%\n2.3%\n2.2%\n3.8%\n4.6%\nSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS\n546\n545\n589\n607\n500\n749\n1,041\n1,343\n0.8%\n0.8%\n0.8%\n0.8%\n0.5%\n0.7%\n1.0%\n1.3%\nUNSUCCESSFUL\n1,189\n1,061\n1,376\n1,319\n1,575\n1,509\n3,000\n3,350\n1.8%\n1.6%\n1.9%\n1.8%\n1.7%\n1.5%\n2.8%\n3.3%\nMERIT RESOLUTIONS\n11,032\n10,627\n11,248\n11,100\n10,921\n9,430\n11,668\n12,558\n17.1%\n15.5%\n15.7%\n15.5%\n11.9%\n9.1%\n11.0%\n12.4%\nMONETARY BENEFITS (millions)\n$93.5\n$117.7\n$126.8\n$146.3\n$136.0\n$145.2\n$176.7\n$169.2\nData compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from EEOC's Charge Data System - quarterly reconciled Data Summary Reports.\nThe total of individual percentages may not always sum to 100% due to rounding.\n11/25/98\nDEFINITIONS OF TERMS\nAdministrative Closure - Charge closed for administrative reasons, which include: failure to locate charging party, charging party failed to respond to\nEEOC communications, charging party refused to accept full relief, closed due to the outcome of related litigation which establishes a precedent that makes\nfurther processing of the charge futile, charging party requests withdrawal of a charge without receiving benefits or having resolved the issue, no statutory\njurisdiction.\nMerit Resolutions - Charges with outcomes favorable to charging parties and/or charges with meritorious allegations. These include negotiated\nsettlements, withdrawals with benefits, successful conciliations, and unsuccessful conciliations.\nNo Reasonable Cause - EEOC's determination of no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in\ninvestigation. The charging party may request a review of a no-cause finding by EEOC Headquarters officials and may exercise the right to bring private\ncourt action.\nReasonable Cause - EEOC's determination of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation.\nReasonable cause determinations are generally followed by efforts to conciliate the discriminatory issues which gave rise to the initial charge.\nNOTE: Some reasonable cause findings are resolved through negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and other types of resolutions, which are\nnot characterized as either successful or unsuccessful conciliations.\nSettlements (Negotiated) - Charges settled with benefits to the charging party as warranted by evidence of record. In such cases, EEOC and/or a FEPA\nis a party to the settlement agreement between the charging party and the respondent (an employer, union, or other entity covered by EEOC-enforced\nstatutes).\nSuccessful Conciliation - Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after successful conciliation. Successful conciliations result in substantial\nrelief to the charging party and all others adversely affected by the discrimination.\nUnsuccessful Conciliation - Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after efforts to conciliate the charge are unsuccessful. Pursuant to\nCommission policy, the field office will close the charge and review it for litigation consideration. NOTE: Because \"reasonable cause\" has been found,\nthis is considered a merit resolution.\nWithdrawal with Benefits - Charge is withdrawn by charging party upon receipt of desired benefits. The withdrawal may take place after a settlement\nor after the respondent grants the appropriate benefit to the charging party."
}