PRIORITY CHARGE HANDLING TASK FORCE
LITIGATION TASK FORCE
REPORT

PAUL M. IGASAKI, Chairman
Chair, Priority Charge Handling Task Force

PAUL STEVEN MILLER, Commissioner
Chair, Litigation Task Force

March 1998

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Report of the Priority Charge Handling and Litigation Task Forces

The Commission has made substantial progress in many areas since implementation of the Priority Charge Handling Procedures (PCHP) in 1995 and the National Enforcement Plan (NEP) in 1996. Field offices have reduced the charge inventory by more than 40%, victims of discrimination are recovering more benefits as a result of Commission enforcement efforts, and the number of cases in the agency's docket that challenge the most serious violations is increasing.

The challenge facing the Commission is how it can build on its recent successes by creating an enforcement program that has the maximum impact on workplace discrimination within the confines of its budget. This report offers recommendations for improvement in four critical areas.

1. The Task Forces recommend increased collaboration and coordination of the activities of the EEOC's 50 field offices and headquarters so that the Commission, as a whole, functions as a single strategic law enforcement agency by:
   • increasing the level of teamwork between field offices, and between headquarters and the field, through the sharing of resources and expertise, and through mutual support of our common enforcement goals;
   • enhancing information sharing among field and headquarters for the purpose of developing a more effective enforcement program;
   • emphasizing the critical role of training and technology in achieving the agency's NEP objectives; and
   • creating an advisory group composed of field and headquarters staffs who will assist the Commission in further developing and implementing NEP strategies.
2. The Task Forces recommend revising the Local Enforcement Plans ("LEPs") so that they will require each field office to have clear and achievable goals for investigative and litigation activity, tailored to the unique circumstances of each district office and the community it serves. LEPs will include:
   • quantitative and qualitative measures of performance with respect to developing and resolving NEP/LEP cases (both in investigation and litigation), in the settlement of charges, and the maintenance of a balanced and manageable inventory;
   • an increased emphasis on the use of Commissioner charges and directed investigations to fill gaps in office LEP implementation; and
   • a more proactive use of outreach, particularly to under-served groups, to develop and to achieve the enforcement goals set out in the LEPs.
3. The Task Forces recommend more fully fine-tuning the agency's charge process reforms to continue reducing the inventory and focusing investigative resources on strong cases, including:
   • maintaining a balanced approach to inventory management and adjusting the agency's charge process to continue reducing the charge inventory, focusing resources on finding and developing NEP/LEP cases, dismissing C cases expeditiously, and ensuring the steady flow, development and re-categorization of B cases;
   • providing better customer service through improvements in the level and quality of responsive service to those who are served by EEOC, especially at intake, but throughout the entire enforcement process;
   • greater consideration of balance and in-depth coverage of priorities identified in the LEP during the case categorization process;
   • increasing emphasis on settlement and mediation at all stages of the charge process as appropriate, and encouraging the exchange of information with the parties when it is balanced and facilitates resolution; and
   • developing private bar relationships to create programs for joint training and enhanced cooperation opportunities.
     
4. The Task Forces recommend that the Commission continue to break down barriers between legal and investigative staffs so that each office functions as a cohesive team, with District Directors and Regional Attorneys jointly accountable for meeting LEP goals, including:
   • building on recent successes in attorney-investigator collaboration in the development and litigation of NEP/LEP cases in many offices;
   • enhancing the level of attorney support to investigators in local and area offices; and
   • reducing administrative and reporting burdens of field investigative and legal staffs, so that they can focus on priority enforcement activities.

The full text of the Task Force Report is available for download in the following formats:

HTML

ZIP-compressed ASCII

This page was last modified on April 2, 1998.

Return to Home Page