The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sues employers for discrimination, but it itself may regularly discriminate against its own employees, judging from documents it produced in response to a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. It has a history of systemically discriminating against employees, and systemically violating the rights of its own employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
For example, the Washington Post reported in 2009 that the “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation’s workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled.”
Similarly, the EEOC was found guilty by a court of systematic, illegal, discrimination against white males in Jurgens v. Thomas, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1561, 1982 WL 409 (N.D.Tex.1982). The EEOC has a much worse record of labor and civil-rights violations than most corporations and agencies with a similar-size workforce.
In short, according to journalist John Berlau, the EEOC is like “the fox guarding the henhouse.” (See John Berlau, “Discrimination at the Opportunity Commission,” Insight, May 19, 1997).
To gauge whether the EEOC continues to face allegations of discrimination, this blog and the Bader Family Foundation submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the EEOC, seeking 8 categories of records, including, among other things.
1. All court complaints or administrative complaints alleging that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has discriminated against, or is discriminating against, a white employee or white employees based on their race.
2. All court complaints or administrative complaints alleging that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has discriminated against, or is discriminating against, a male employee or male employees based on their sex.
When the EEOC did not comply with the Freedom of Information Act’s 20-day deadline for responding to the FOIA request, the Bader Family Foundation sued the EEOC on April 10. The EEOC dragged its feet in responding.
In December, the EEOC finally produced some court complaints alleging discrimination by the EEOC against its employees, which can be found at this link and at this link. In a December 21 letter, it withheld the administrative complaints against it for committing discrimination, as being supposedly exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The July 2022 lawsuit of Maximilian Feige alleged that the EEOC discriminated him based on sex and other factors, and retaliated against him for internally representing various male EEOC employees subject to sex discrimination, and for investigating discrimination. His court complaint is found here.
Pages 1-2 of Feige’s court complaint alleged “that he was subjected to ongoing harassment (non-sexual) by the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charlotte Burrows…discrimination on the basis of sex (male), disability…and reprisal…for his involvement…in OEO complaints in both the Tampa Field Office of the EEOC … and Miami District of the EEOC…, in which plaintiff opposed discrimination.”
He alleged that he was retaliated against for representing male EEOC employees such as
Mario Hernandez (Miami District Office Investigator): subjected to sexual harassment, non-sexual harassment, and retaliation by MIDO management. (EEO Complaint No. 2018-0024); (EEO Complaint No. 2018-0005); (EEO Complaint No. 2018-0027).
Robert Tom (Miami District Office): subjected to sexual harassment, non-sexual harassment, and retaliation by MIDO management — (EEO Complaint No. 2018-0001).
Juan Nieves (Miami District Office): subjected to sexual harassment, non-sexual harassment, and retaliation by MIDO management — (EEO Complaint No. 2018-0016).
Haidy Elshater (Miami District Office): subjected to discrimination and retaliation by MIDO management — (EEO Complaint No.: 2019-0005).
Nelson Borges (Tampa Field Office): subjected to discrimination and retaliation, by Tampa Field Director Evangeline Hawthorne, based on his sex-Male and for engaging in the protected activity of reporting discrimination.
Christopher Griffin (Tampa Field Office): subjected to discrimination and retaliation, by Tampa Field Director Evangeline Hawthorne, based on his sex-Male and for engaging in the protected activity of reporting discrimination.
See Complaint ¶ 18, in Feige v. Burrows, Case No. 22-22086, filed in federal court in Miami. (“MIDO” stands for “Miami District Office”).
Mr. Feige said he was denied a promotion to Enforcement Supervisor despite being the most qualified candidate, and instead, EEOC “selected a female who was not [even] on the certificate of [those] eligible” for the position, a rather obvious impropriety. He said he was subjected to many acts of retaliation for opposing discrimination, in violation of the very civil rights laws EEOC was created to enforce.
The April 2022 lawsuit of Bridget Thomas, found at this link, alleges racial and other discrimination, manifested in envy and resentment toward her for being a “white girl” who had the best case closure numbers in the New Orleans Field Office. She describes how a black female co-worker told her, “I know I shouldn’t tell you this but I know you’ll understand, sometimes I can’t stand to be around White people,” an allegation found in paragraph 15 of her complaint filed in federal court in Gulfport, Mississipp. She alleges being denied positions she would have been selected for absent discrimination, and being subjected to discriminatory application of workplace rules that allegedly poisoned her work environment. A judge dismissed Ms. Thomas’s sex discrimination and disability discrimination allegations in a 2023 ruling, leaving the racial discrimination claims to proceed. There was apparently a “settlement of all claims” in her lawsuit on September 14, 2023.
The fact that the EEOC did not release these records until December reflects its delaying tactics. In June, it filed a motion to dismiss three other categories of records sought in the FOIA request (those seeking EEOC communications about discrimination or with specified civil-rights groups). It claimed those categories were too vague, too difficult to locate, and would be an undue burden to find, and thus were not “reasonably described” by the FOIA request. We filed a brief in opposition to that motion, found at this link. The judge has yet to rule on that motion, but the mere filing of the motion may have delayed any release of records sought by the FOIA request, by resulting in the judge not issuing a routine minute order telling the agency to respond to the FOIA request. (Often, a couple months after a FOIA lawsuit is filed, the judge will issue a routine order telling the parties to provide the court with a status report letting the court know how many responsive records there are, and how long the agency expects to take to produce the records. Such an order is useful in prodding the agency to search for and release the records without too much delay).
