Civil rights advocate sues EEOC

The leader of a federal employee anti-discrimination group recently filed a $900,000 lawsuit against the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission in federal court, alleging the agency allows biased judges to preside over hearings.

Sam Wright Jr., the president of Federal Employees Against Discrimination and a Transportation Department employee, announced Tuesday that he had lodged a complaint against the EEOC on behalf of his anti-discrimination organization because he believes the agency systematically fails to employ independent judges, in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII and the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act. Wright said that neither he nor his advocacy group have sued the EEOC before.

A lawyer at EEOC said the agency follows the law in assigning judges to preside over hearings.

The EEOC's complaint process impedes, rather than advances, the goal of eliminating discrimination in the federal government, according to Wright. He said he chose to file suit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. on April 4 because he believes that broad reforms the agency is considering will not address a fundamental problem with the judges who run hearings.

Wright's suit asks for $900,000 in damages and a temporary injunction against EEOC proceedings that would last until the case is decided. EEOC spokesman David Grinberg declined to comment on Wright's lawsuit.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the EEOC is required to assign administrative law judges to preside over hearings, Wright said. These judges must go through a certification process at the Office of Personnel Management and do not have to answer to the EEOC, according to the law.

Wright's suit alleges that the EEOC circumvents this requirement, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which requires the agency to adhere to the Administrative Procedures Act. Rather than use certified administrative law judges, the EEOC allows attorney examiners to decide cases, he alleged.

The EEOC created an attorney examiner position, which OPM certified, Wright said. But the agency did not tell OPM that the attorney examiners would act as judges during hearings, he claimed. EEOC hires attorneys to fill examiner positions and then assigns them as judges, the suit said.

Wright alleged that as judges, the attorney examiners are inherently biased because they are directly accountable to the EEOC and are subject to performance evaluations conducted by the agency. In contrast, administrative law judges are independent of the agency and hold tenures equivalent to those of federal judges, he explained.

In addition, the EEOC employs private attorneys to act as judges at some hearings, Wright said, creating a similar problem of bias. He said he believes the EEOC purposely hires these, and the attorney examiners, to maintain control over judges and push them to make decisions in favor of federal agencies.

The EEOC lawyer said the agency does employ attorney examiners and allows them to preside over hearings, but added that this practice does not violate any requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or the 1972 Civil Rights Act. The Merit Systems Protection Board also uses attorney examiners to adjudicate hearings, he noted.

There are some instances where the EEOC is required by statute to use certified administrative law judges, he explained, and in those cases, the agency complies. For instance, the EEOC uses administrative law judges in hearings involving potential 1991 Civil Rights Act violations.

The EEOC employs private attorneys to serve as judges, but only in discrimination cases brought by EEOC employees themselves, in the interest of avoiding a conflict of interest, the lawyer said. The agency would not want its own lawyers adjudicating cases involving its employees, he said.

Wright claimed that the agency's stance on the use of administrative law judges indicates that the commission is not serious about enforcing anti-discrimination laws. "The EEOC does none of what Congress has mandated it to do," he said. "It's time for the EEOC to become accountable."