 t h
e h
u m a n
s i d e
|
by kathleen "kelly"
bergeron
EEOC: A
Discriminating Bureaucracy?
Is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on a witch hunt? Why is it that
House Speaker Newt Gingrich testified in March that he would agree to support a
significant budget increase in exchange for major reforms and a tighter rein on EEOC
activities?
The EEOC, created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to combat job discrimination, has
been the object of growing controversy over the last several months. On the April 21
edition of ABC-TV's newsmagazine, 20/20, the EEOC's case against Joe's Stone Crab
in Miami Beach made it the target for some sarcastic criticism: "The government is on
a very important and vital mission. Federal officials think that when you sit down in a
restaurant, you should be served by equal numbers of men and women. Now, that's a problem
for some businesses, since equal numbers of men and women don't always apply for the same
job."
The show also criticized the EEOC for investigating sex discrimination in the hiring
practices of another restaurant (Hooters) and a women's clothing store (Lillie Rubin). The
EEOC wanted Hooters to hire men to serve food and it wanted Lillie Rubin to hire men to
assist females in dressing rooms.
Hooters decided to fight back through public opinion and an advertising campaign. It
seems to have worked because the restaurant haven't heard from the EEOC. The government
also backed down in the Lillie Rubin case. Unfortunately both businesses spent
considerable amounts of money during the investigative process. See that's the kicker.
Win, lose, or draw, the employer pays money regardless of whether the case results in
litigation.
In December 1997, the EEOC began an experiment with "employment testers."
Under the experiment, pairs of job applicants with identical qualifications but certain
different characteristics (i.e., race, sex, physical ability, national origin) apply for
the same jobs. The experiment is designed to determine whether employers illegally
discriminate against applicants in protected classes. Sound like entrapment to you? Well
currently the courts are divided on the legality of employment testers. The use of testers
assumes guilt on the part of the employer where there has been no indication of
discrimination.
The EEOC's backlog of cases is currently 65,000. The 1999 budget proposed by the
Clinton administration would increase funding from $242 to $279 million. How is that the
EEOC has a backlog of cases yet has the time to investigate the offenses manufactured
through the tester experiment? Why does it need more money if it has the resources to
manufacture offenses? Is this the best use of taxpayers' money?
What the EEOC fails to recognize is that modern human resource management has led to
the creation of many proactive programs by employers that ensure fair and equitable
treatment in the workplace. Apparently, EEOC bureaucrats can't accept the existence of the
transformation of the last 30 years that has made discrimination a cultural oddity,
perhaps for fear that the gains made threaten their own employment.
Politicians and business people must remain on guard against the vigilante justice
promoted by the EEOC that invents discrimination for it to combat.
Kathleen "Kelly" Bergeron is executive vice
president and chief of staff of Associated Industries and affiliated corporations.
July/August 1998 -- Florida Business Insight, 501 N. Adams St., Tallahassee,
Fla. 32302,
(850)224-7173, insight@aif.com |
