Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822425
label
Parental Discrimination Legislation
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822425
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Parental Discrimination Legislation
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822425
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-014-009-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
bc6ce06bf54ebca0
ocrText
0025244 WPD
Page 1
President's Proposal to Prohibit Discrimination Against Parents
April 18, 1999
Q:
What is the President's proposal on parental discrimination?
A.
The President will send Congress legislation that prohibits discrimination on
the basis of parental status in employment. The proposed legislation would
protect those who choose to have a family from discrimination in
employment, in hiring, advancement, and other employment decisions,
because of their status as parents. This legislation would protect parents of
children and those seeking legal custody of children.
The President's proposed federal legislation would offer protection to
workers who are parents in a number of situations. It would prohibit
employers from taking a mother or father off career-advancing paths (e.g.,
partnership track) out of some generalized belief that parents as a class are
not capable of committing to the work requirements of the job. It would also
prohibit employers from hiring a person without children over an equally or
more qualified person with children. In general, the President's proposal
would protect workers from unfair assumptions about their commitment to
their jobs in hiring, advancement, and other employment decisions. While
this law would clearly not prohibit employers from making hiring and
promotion decisions on the basis of job performance, it would ensure that
workers are not unfairly discriminated against simply because they are
parents.
Q:
What evidence do you have that discrimination against parents in the
workplace is a problem?
A:
Despite the fact that there is currently no cause of action for parental
discrimination, we have found numerous cases in which employees describe
instances of discrimination due to their status as parents. The precise extent
of this problem is unknown at this time, but however great or small, it
deserves a remedy. This form of discrimination should simply not take place
at all and that is why the President has proposed this simple, but clear
prohibition.
Q:
How do you respond to the argument by opponents of the measure that this
proposal will cause an avalanche of litigation in the courts?
A:
Opponents of this proposal have argued both that employers do not
~0025244 WPD
Page 2
discriminate on the basis of parental status and that this proposal will cause
an explosion of litigation. It is difficult to see how the President's proposal
will do both. Because the President's proposal only prohibits discrimination
on the basis of disparate treatment (not disparate impact), plaintiffs will be
required to show direct evidence of discrimination, which is a difficult burden
in employment discrimination cases. Therefore, there is no reason to think
that the creation of this cause of action will produce unnecessary and
unwarranted litigation.
Q:
Aren't you radically changing the rules of the workplace, if parents can now
sue when they're required to work overtime or when they are required to
move?
A.
The President's proposal does not do that. This law would clearly not
prohibit employers from making hiring and promotion decisions on the basis
of job performance, and therefore, does not protect parents who are treated
as every other employee. If all employees are required to work overtime,
then employees who are parents can be required to work overtime. The
President's proposal simply protects workers who are parents from unfair
assumptions about their commitment or capacity to work.
)
04/20/99 01:55 FAX 202 456 6218
OPL
001
Family- parental discrimination
CC Bruce
Nicule/Neera
(et.'s do
sume for Thing
The weekly
oujesting
another
event (ca
vadio ad 2
WHITE HOUSE
dress) SUL-
vounding
inheduction
OFFICE OF PUBLIC LIAISON
9 the
bill
Elena
Phone (202)456-2930 Fax (202)456-6218
Page: One of 2
Date: 04/20/99
"
To: ELENA KAGEN
Fax 6-2878
Phone:
From:
MARY BETH CAHILL
Comments:
04/20/99 01:55 FAX 202 456 6218
OPL
002
Too (cc N Peur
mary BEEN we mul
4-19-99
to get Tu is was run-
capied
Be
mary Beth Calm
Mark Penn
Podesta
Clinton Seeks to Give Parents Standing
To Create Basis for Discrimination Suits
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
their blases."
Staff Reporter of THE WALL. STREET JOURNAL
Mr. Clinton announced his Intention to
WASHINGTON-Renewing its court-
introduce such legislation in his State of
ship with "soccer moms" as the presiden-
the Union address: he recently expanded
tial campaign approaches. the Clinton ad-
his fund-raising stump speech to signal
ministration will seek to create a broad
that helping parents will be a major theme
new basis for job-discrimination lawsuits
for Democrats in next year's elections.
by classifying parents as a "protected
"We have not done enough in the U.S. to
class."
help people balance work and family,' the
Under the proposal, parents would have
president said Friday night at a Boston De-
the same standing to file discrimination
mocratic Party event.
cases as those who already fall under the
The message dovetalls with Vice Presi-
legally protected classes of race, sex, age.
dent Al Gore's urban-sprawl initiative,
religion or disability. Legislation will be
which is aimed at reducing the time par-
sponsored by Democratic Sen. Christopher
ents spend in traffic jams and creating
Dodd of Connecticut and is expected by the
more green space for families to enjoy.
end of the month.
Although the antidiscrimination pro-
Business groups oppose the plan. argu-
posal probably will face a frosty reception
ing that it could prompt a flood of lawsuits
in the GOP-controlled Congress. the elec-
when there is little evidence that a problem
tion-year dynamics could make opposition
exists. They say disgruntled or poor-per-
risky.
forming employees could exploit the new
President Clinton's education propos-
legal standing.
als and criticism of former President Bush
But White House Domestic Policy Ad-
for vetoing the Family and Medical Leave
viser Bruce Reed says it is the product of
Act helped him tap the middle-class soccer-
"real cases." Among them is a New Jersey
mom vote in 1992. The Family and Medical
woman who claimed she was passed over
Leave Act became the first bill signed into
for promotions because she is a mother. A
law by Mr. Clinton. The administration
New York federal judge rejected her law-
this year is expected to try to expand the
suit, saying the person who was pro-
now-popular law. which allows workers to
moted-who had no children-was of the
take time off without pay to help sick or dis-
same sex.
abled relatives.
The White House acknowledges that Its
The White House is making no secret of
evidence is anecdotal, but Mr. Reed says
its intention to make the fate of the parent
that because such discrimination isn't ille-
antidiscrimination proposal an issue next
gal. ''it is impossible to tell how many
year. "A truly pro-family Congress would
cases there will be. Like most cases of dis-
pass this in a heartbeat," Mr. Reed says.
crimination. employers don't advertise
"We'll see."
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1999
Q&AFAMD.417
Page 1
President's Proposal to Prohibit Discrimination Against Parents
April 18, 1999
Q:
What is the President's proposal on parental discrimination?
A.
The President will send Congress legislation that prohibits discrimination on
the basis of parental status in employment. The proposed legislation would
protect those who choose to have a family from discrimination in
employment, both in the character of their job and in terms of hiring and
advancement, because of their status as parents. This legislation would
protect parents of children and those seeking legal custody of children.
The President's proposed federal legislation would offer protection to
workers who are parents in a number of situations. It would prohibit
employers from taking a taking a mother or father off career-advancing paths
(e.g., partnership track) out of some belief that parents as a class are not
capable of committing to the work requirements of the job, though there is
no discernable difference in the work product of those employees who are
parents. It would also prohibit employers from hiring a woman without
children over a more qualified man with children because the hired employee
did not have children. In general, the President's proposal would protect
workers from unfair assumptions about their commitment to their job that
can affect hiring, advancement and other employment decisions. While this
law would clearly not prohibit employers from making hiring and promotion
decisions on the basis of job performance, it would ensure that workers are
not unfairly discriminated against simply because they are parents.
Q:
What evidence do you have that discrimination against parents in the
workplace is a problem?
A:
Despite the fact that there is currently no cause of action for parental
discrimination, we have found a number of cases in which employees
describe instances of discrimination due to their status as parents.
Therefore, though the problem may not be rampant, it is a problem that
deserves a remedy. This form of discrimination should simply not take place
and that is why the President has proposed this simple, but clear prohibition.
Q:
How do you respond to the argument by opponents of the measure that this
proposal will cause an avalanche of litigation in the courts?
A:
Opponents of this proposal have argued both that employers do not
discriminate on the basis of parental status and that this proposal will cause
Q&AFAMD.417
Page 2
an explosion of litigation. It is difficult to see how the President's proposal
will do both. In fact, because the President's proposal only prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disparate treatment, not disparate impact,
plaintiffs will be required to show direct evidence of discrimination against
themselves, an often difficult burden in employment discrimination cases.
Therefore, there is no reason to think it will cause unnecessary litigation.
Indeed, only if this is a rampant, pervasive problem would it cause an
'avalanche' of litigation.
Q:
Aren't you radically changing the rules of the workplace, if parents can now
sue if they're required to work overtime or if they are required to move?
A.
The President's proposal does not do that. This law would clearly not
prohibit employers from making hiring and promotion decisions on the basis
of job performance, and therefore, does not protect parents who are treated
as every other employee. If all employees are required to work overtime,
then employees who are parents can be required to work overtime. The
President's proposal simply protects workers who are parents from unfair
assumptions about their commitment or capacity to work.
DRAFT BILL RE PARENTAL STATUS DISCRIMINATION
Section 1
Definitions
For the purposes of this act,
(a) the terms Temployers %employee Temployment agency
labor organization complaining party
person,
State,
commerce, $industry affecting commerce,
demonstrates,
and
respondent will have the meaning as defined in Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. $2000e.
(b) the term Sparental status means the status of
biological, adopted, or foster parent, stepparent, or standing in
loco parentis, to a son or daughter who is under 18 years of age
or 18 years of age of older and incapable of self-care because of
a mental or physical disability.
Section 2
Unlawful Employment Practices
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual
with regard to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment because of such person's parental status.
(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individuals because of his
or her parental status or to classify or refer for employment any
individual because of his or her parental status.
(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor
organization to fail or refuse to refer for employment any
individual because of such individual's parental status.
(d) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer, employment agency, or labor organization to
discriminate against any individual because he or she has opposed
any employment practice made unlawful under this act, or because
he or she has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated
in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under
this act.
(e) Nothing in this act shall be interpreted to require any
employer, employment agency, or labor organization to collect or
report information about the parental status of its employees,
nor to require that any employer, employment agency, or labor
organization grant preferential treatment to any individual
because of his or her parental status.
Section 3
Enforcement and Remedies
(a) The powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in
sections 705, 706, 707, 709, and 710 of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. $2000e-4, 2000e-5, 2000e-6, 2000e-8, and 2000e-9)
shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this title provides
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to the Attorney
General, or to any person alleging a violation of any provision
of this Act.
(b) Every employer, employment agency, and labor
organization shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places
upon its premises where notices to employees, applicant for
employment, and members are customarily posted a notice setting
forth excerpts from or summaries of the pertinent provisions of
this act and information pertinent to the filing of a complaint.
A willful violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine
of not more than $100 for each separate offense.
(c) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall be
empowered to promulgate regulations implementing the provisions
of this act.
Problemy Discrim. against Parents
ro reasonche
account
Fam - get pregram PDA luskad
Disparak treatment - intentional
Dispank impact - rental on fale -have an impat.
(need atatistics (data
no frotas prif treatment
duty to reasonsibility accom
nariow group of discrimunation - make a
dec { anto -discrim) based on The notine that a parent.
when
benefits-include benefits include
class of items
Helen: erv on > 8 upler - not
health ins.
Rel - excemption,
2
Title vn, ENDA have exceptions
Prohibiting Discrimination Against Parents
Policy: We propose that the Administration introduce legislation that prohibits discrimination on
the basis of family status in employment, both in terms of hiring and advancement. Family
preg-
status would cover parents of children, women who are pregnant and those seeking legal custody
PDA
of children. The animating principle of this policy is that those who choose to have a family
should not be discriminated against in employment, both in the character of their job and in terms
of hiring and advancement, because of their status as parents.
Rather than amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, we propose to put forward legislation that
stands alone. As is the case with the Americans with Disabilities Act as enacted and the
Employment Non-Discrimation Act as proposed, such legislation would contain the mandate that
prohibits employment discrimination against parents, though it would refer to definititions
and clauses within Title VII.
Examples of conduct:
Employers who take women who are parents off career-advancing paths (e.g., partnership
track) out of some belief that parents as a class are not capable of committing to the work
requirements of the job, though there is no discernable difference in the work product of
those employees who are women and parents.
The hiring of a woman without children over a more qualified woman with children
because the hired employee did not have children.
Background:
Prohibiting employment discirmination ased on parental of family status is the law of some states
and many municipalities. (Federal law currently prohibits discrimination based on family status
in the provision of Housing. See Fair Housing Act.) For example, New Jersey law states that
"All persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment property without discrimination
because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual
orientation, familial status, or sex, subject only to conditions and limitations applicable alike to
all persons. This opportunity is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. (Stat. @ 10:5-4
(1998)) In addition, Michigan law states, "The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and
other real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and
educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin,
age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized
and declared to be a civil right. "(MCL @ 37.2102; MSA @ 3.548(102) (1998)) In addition, a
number of municipalities prohibit employment discrimination based on family status, including
the District of Columbia, New York, Miami-Dade County, and Pittsburgh.
Concerns:
Such legislation could raise the profile of the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA), a
bill outlawing discrimination in hiring, firing and promotions based on sexual orientation, as gay
and lesbian groups may demand that the Administration make ENDA a priority over any new
civil right.
Other issues:
A number of issues still require resolution, including:
Whether disparate impact analysis would apply in such a statute?
Whether such a prohibition would apply in the provision of benefits?
How to ensure such a statute would not apply to the detriment of workers with families?
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
MASSACHUSETTS
Pregnancy Discrimination Charges
EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1991 - FY 1998
FY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
FY 1994
FY 1995
FY 1996
FY 1997
FY 1998
RECEIPTS
3,000
3,385
3,577
4,170
4,191
3,743
3,977
4,219
RESOLUTIONS
3,135
3,045
3,145
3,181
3,908
4,186
4,595
4,467
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE
SETTLEMENTS
580
457
420
373
440
388
395
424
18.5%
15.0%
13.4%
11.7%
11.3%
9.3%
8.6%
9.5%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS
245
237
311
341
362
323
379
328
7.8%
7.8%
9.9%
10.7%
9.3%
7.7%
8.2%
7.3%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES
671
762
756
920
1,155
1,098
1,103
1,026
21.4%
25.0%
24.0%
28.9%
29.6%
26.2%
24.0%
23.0%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE
1,518
1,497
1,552
1,435
1,851
2,276
2,432
2,534
48.4%
49.2%
49.3%
45.1%
47.4%
54.4%
52.9%
56.7%
REASONABLE CAUSE
114
87
104
104
96
97
279
154
3.6%
2.9%
3.3%
3.3%
2.5%
2.3%
6.1%
3.5%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS
77
56
62
60
51
55
71
66
2.5%
1.8%
2.0%
1.9%
1.3%
1.3%
1.5%
1.5%
UNSUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS
37
31
42
44
45
42
208
88
1.2%
1.0%
1.3%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
4.5%
2.0%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS
939
781
835
818
898
808
1,053
906
30.0%
25.6%.
26.6%
25.7%
23.0%
19.3%
22.9%
20.3%
versus
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)
$3.8
$3.7
$3.9
$4.0
$4.7
$4.1
$5.6
$5.3
12 4 %
Data compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from EEOC's Charge Data System National Data Base.
overall
The total of individual percentages may not always sum to 100% due to rounding.
11/25/98
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Administrative Closure - Charge closed for administrative reasons, which include: failure to locate charging party, charging party failed to respond to
EEOC communications, charging party refused to accept full relief, closed due to the outcome of related litigation which establishes a precedent that makes
further processing of the charge futile, charging party requests withdrawal of a charge without receiving benefits or having resolved the issue, no statutory
jurisdiction.
FEPAs - Fair Employment Practices Agencies are state and local agencies with which EEOC has contractual worksharing agreements to process
employment discrimination charges.
Merit Resolutions - Charges with outcomes favorable to charging parties and/or charges with meritorious allegations. These include negotiated
settlements, withdrawals with benefits, successful conciliations, and unsuccessful conciliations.
No Reasonable Cause -- EEOC's determination of no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in
investigation. The charging party may request a review of a no-cause finding by EEOC Headquarters officials and may exercise the right to bring private
court action.
Reasonable Cause - EEOC's determination of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation.
Reasonable cause determinations are generally followed by efforts to conciliate the discriminatory issues which gave rise to the initial charge.
NOTE: Some reasonable cause findings are resolved through negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and other types of resolutions, which are
not characterized as either successful or unsuccessful conciliations.
Settlements (Negotiated) - Charges settled with benefits to the charging party as warranted by evidence of record. In such cases, EEOC and/or a FEPA
is a party to the settlement agreement between the charging party and the respondent (an employer, union, or other entity covered by EEOC-enforced
statutes).
Successful Conciliation - Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after successful conciliation. Successful conciliations result in substantial
relief to the charging party and all others adversely affected by the discrimination.
Unsuccessful Conciliation - Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after efforts to conciliate the charge are unsuccessful. Pursuant to
Commission policy, the field office will close the charge and review it for litigation consideration. NOTE: Because "reasonable cause" has been found,
this is considered a merit resolution.
Withdrawal with Benefits - Charge is withdrawn by charging party upon receipt of desired benefits. The withdrawal may take place after a settlement
or after the respondent grants the appropriate benefit to the charging party.
CHARGE STATISTICS FROM THE
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
FY 1991 THROUGH FY 1998
FY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
FY 1994
FY 1995
FY 1996
FY 1997
FY 1998
Total Charges no
63,898
72,302
87,942
91,189
87,529
77,990
80,680
79,591
Race
27,981
29,548
31,695
31,656
29,986
26,287
29,199
28,820
43.8%
40.9%
36.0%
34.8%
34.3%
33.8%
36.2%
36.2%
Sex
17,672
21,796
23,919
25,860
26,181
23,813
24,728
24,454
27.7%
30.1%
27.2%
28.4%
29.9%
30.6%
30.7%
30.7%
National Origin
6,692
7,434
7,454
7,414
7,035
6,687
6,712
6,778
10.5%
10.3%
8.5%
8.1%
8.0%
8.6%
8.3%
8.5%
Religion
1,192
1,388
1,449
1,546
1,581
1,564
1,709
1,786
1.9%
1.9%
1.6%
1.7%
1.8%
2.0%
2.1%
2.2%
Retaliation
7,906
10,932
12,644
14,415
15,342
14,412
18,113
17,246
12.4%
15.1%
14.4%
15.8%
17.5%
18.5%
22.5%
21.7%
Age
17,550
19,573
19.809
19,618
17,416
15,719
15,785
15,191
27.5%
27.1%
22.5%
21.5%
19.9%
20.2%
19.6%
19.1%
Disability
NA
1,048
15,274
18,859
19,798
18,046
18,108
17,806
1.4%
17.4%
20.7%
22.6%
23.1%
22.4%
22.4%
Equal Pay Act
1,187
1,294
1,328
1,381
1,275
969
1,134
1,071
1.9%
1.8%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.2%
1.4%
1.3%
NOTE:
Data compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from EEOC's Charge Data System quarterly reconciled Data Summary Reports.
the 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
year will be less than the total of the eight bases listed.
EEOC began enfore ing the Americans with Disabilities Art on July 26, 1992
Updated 11/25/98
STATE
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
All Statutes
FY 1991 - FY 1998
FY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
FY 1994
FY 1995
FY 1996
FY 1997
FY 1998
RECEIPTS
63,898
72,302
87,942
91,189
87,529
77,990
80,680
79,591
RESOLUTIONS
64,342
68,366
71,716
71,563
91,774
103,467
106,312
101,470
RESOLUTIONS BY TYPE
SETTLEMENTS
5,047
4,348
4,138
3,938
3,811
3,163
3,992
4,646
7.8%
6.4%
5.8%
5.5%
4.2%
3.1%
3.8%
4.6%
WITHDRAWALS W/BENEFITS
4,250
4,673
5,145
5,236
5,035
4,009
3,635
3,219
6.6%
6.8%
7.2%
7.3%
5.5%
3.9%
3.4%
3.2%
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES
14,941
16,003
20,285
26,012
34,153
30,821
30,077
27,118
23.2%
23.4%
28.3%
36.3%
37.2%
29.8%
28.3%
26.7%
NO REASONABLE CAUSE
38,369
41,736
40,183
34,451
46,700
63,216
64,567
61,794
59.6%
61.0%
56.0%
48.1%
50.9%
61.1%
60.7%
60.9%
REASONABLE CAUSE
1,735
1,606
1,965
1,926
2,075
2,258
4,041
4,693
2.7%
2.3%
2.7%
2.7%
2.3%
2.2%
3.8%
4.6%
SUCCESSFUL CONCILIATIONS
546
545
589
607
500
749
1,041
1,343
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.5%
0.7%
1.0%
1.3%
UNSUCCESSFUL
1,189
1,061
1,376
1,319
1,575
1,509
3,000
3,350
1.8%
1.6%
1.9%
1.8%
1.7%
1.5%
2.8%
3.3%
MERIT RESOLUTIONS
11,032
10,627
11,248
11,100
10,921
9,430
11,668
12,558
17.1%
15.5%
15.7%
15.5%
11.9%
9.1%
11.0%
12.4%
MONETARY BENEFITS (millions)
$93.5
$117.7
$126.8
$146.3
$136.0
$145.2
$176.7
$169.2
Data compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from EEOC's Charge Data System - quarterly reconciled Data Summary Reports.
The total of individual percentages may not always sum to 100% due to rounding.
11/25/98
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Administrative Closure - Charge closed for administrative reasons, which include: failure to locate charging party, charging party failed to respond to
EEOC communications, charging party refused to accept full relief, closed due to the outcome of related litigation which establishes a precedent that makes
further processing of the charge futile, charging party requests withdrawal of a charge without receiving benefits or having resolved the issue, no statutory
jurisdiction.
Merit Resolutions - Charges with outcomes favorable to charging parties and/or charges with meritorious allegations. These include negotiated
settlements, withdrawals with benefits, successful conciliations, and unsuccessful conciliations.
No Reasonable Cause - EEOC's determination of no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in
investigation. The charging party may request a review of a no-cause finding by EEOC Headquarters officials and may exercise the right to bring private
court action.
Reasonable Cause - EEOC's determination of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation.
Reasonable cause determinations are generally followed by efforts to conciliate the discriminatory issues which gave rise to the initial charge.
NOTE: Some reasonable cause findings are resolved through negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and other types of resolutions, which are
not characterized as either successful or unsuccessful conciliations.
Settlements (Negotiated) - Charges settled with benefits to the charging party as warranted by evidence of record. In such cases, EEOC and/or a FEPA
is a party to the settlement agreement between the charging party and the respondent (an employer, union, or other entity covered by EEOC-enforced
statutes).
Successful Conciliation - Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after successful conciliation. Successful conciliations result in substantial
relief to the charging party and all others adversely affected by the discrimination.
Unsuccessful Conciliation - Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after efforts to conciliate the charge are unsuccessful. Pursuant to
Commission policy, the field office will close the charge and review it for litigation consideration. NOTE: Because "reasonable cause" has been found,
this is considered a merit resolution.
Withdrawal with Benefits - Charge is withdrawn by charging party upon receipt of desired benefits. The withdrawal may take place after a settlement
or after the respondent grants the appropriate benefit to the charging party.