You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
What Does an EEOC Finding Mean?
by Pat Washington
I was denied tenure in the Women´s Studies Department at San Diego State University in May 2001 and
fired in May 2002. I experienced standard forms of race-sex discrimination and retaliation from my senior colleagues in
Women´s Studies, including shifting standards, hyper-scrutiny, ridicule and devaluation of my work and
accomplishments, negative stereotyping, shunning, and ostracism. I filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the federal civil rights enforcement agency) in July, 2001. After a 14-month investigation, the
EEOC issued findings against San Diego State University, stating there was "reasonable cause" to believe the
university discriminated against me by denying me tenure and promotion and terminating me "on the basis of
race/sex combined and in retaliation for previous complaints." The EEOC´s proposed remedies were
reinstatement with tenure, promotion, back pay and benefits.
My partner and I literally danced around my office when the EEOC findings came over the fax. We thought that
- whether or not university officials acknowledged wrongdoing - they would avoid further embarrassment by immediately
implementing the EEOC´s proposed remedies. After all, a "reasonable cause" finding is quite rare - out
of the approximately 80,000 cases filed per year, the EEOC finds for the complainant in less than 10% of the cases it
reviews.
We also thought we would avoid a protracted, expensive, and emotionally
grueling legal battle, and that the attorneys representing me at that time would
consider the EEOC findings a major coup.
We were in for a surprise on all counts. The ridicule, contempt, negative stereotyping, and devaluation started all
over again - only this time it was aimed at the EEOC. SDS´s spin doctors discounted the favorable findings, stating
that the EEOC had not given the university a chance to "tell its side of the story" and intimating that the EEOC
case manager, also a Black female, was inherently biased against the university. As for my then current attorneys, after
some initial glee at the prospect of opposing counsel´s "eating his shorts" upon learning that the EEOC
found in my favor, they also downplayed the significance of the findings ("the EEOC can´t make a state
agency do anything," "we´re filing in state court, not federal court - so the EEOC findings can´t
be introduced at trial," etc.)
That´s when I really had to digest some hard lessons about the "just us" system. The EEOC
findings - especially the recommendation that I be restored to the position I would have had, absent discrimination and
retaliation - provoked not only the university´s attorneys, but also my own. Both their attorneys and mine began
talking about how I had absolutely no chance of getting my job back (which is all I wanted), telling me instead that I
needed to cut my losses, take a cash settlement, and start fresh somewhere else. Never mind that I had spent six years
getting my Ph.D. and another six jumping through all the hoops I was told I needed to jump through to get tenure - only to
have myself and my work demeaned and devalued because of my race and sex and my unwillingness to be silent about
disparate treatment. Never mind that after getting no administrative relief from the university and spending over $30,000
seeking legal help, I finally got the federal civil rights enforcement agency to weigh in on my side. Both sets of attorneys
wanted me simply to shut up, settle for what I could get, and go away. In their parlance, that would be a
"win/win" for the university and for me. Somehow, I could never get past seeing it as a win for the university
(buying itself out of discrimination charges rather than stopping the discrimination) and a win for my former attorneys
(walking away with a non-returnable $20,000 retainer and a hefty portion of the settlement, with little "front
end" work) - but a loss to me (allowing the university to harm me twice).
Getting back to the question opening this piece É Imagine that you have a "reasonable cause"
finding from the EEOC and a letter from the Department of Justice giving you a right to file a lawsuit in federal court (but
the DOJ is "too busy" to litigate on your behalf). Your attorneys are threatening to walk if you don´t
accept the latest incarnation of an unreasonable settlement offer that you turned down several times before you even hired
them.
Have you really gained anything from your EEOC "reasonable cause finding"? Yes, indeed. You
have.
After going through one university-sponsored review after another - each one upholding the university´s
action against you - you finally get the satisfaction of knowing that the federal civil rights enforcement agency (the experts
on discrimination) doesn´t think you are lying or crazy. Regardless of the fact that the EEOC´s powers are
limited in cases involving state agencies (they can only conciliate, not litigate in such cases), you have just withstood one
the most impartial reviews of your case to date - and this impartial body has told you, "Yeah, we believe you were
wronged, and we believe you should be made whole."
Not only do you get some psychic relief from this development, you get to tell other people. An EEOC
reasonable cause finding is very useful in the "court of public opinion" - it helps demystify the arcane realm of
academe, translate the technicalities of tenure and promotion, and illuminate the illusory nature of the ivory tower. After
getting the EEOC finding, you may not need to respond so often to the question, "So, why do you think you were
discriminated against?" Just saying that the EEOC found in your favor cuts through skepticism - rendering
legitimacy and credibility to your lived experience. This can add to the number of people who are prepared to take your
allegations seriously and to help you.
An EEOC reasonable cause finding also serves as personal vindication. It gives you the stamina to continue
standing up for yourself, even as you are assailed by the reality that "justice" all too often means "just
us" (i.e., the gatekeepers and power brokers who excluded you in the first place).
Finally, an EEOC reasonable cause finding forces some modicum of accountability on the institution that
discriminated against you. The university may puff itself up in denial and righteous indignation when the finding is issued,
but that is all part of a well-rehearsed strategy to hide oppression under the cover of victimhood.
This fact was borne in upon me several months ago when I was making "small talk" with a fellow
traveler at the Oakland airport. The conversation got around to my tenure and promotion battle. When I mentioned the
EEOC reasonable cause finding, my new acquaintance stopped me and said, "Wait. Let me tell you how the
university responded. The university said that the EEOC didn´t do a thorough investigation, that the investigator
didn´t interview the appropriate campus individuals, that they didn´t get a chance to present all of their
evidence, and that the investigator was biased for whatever reason."
I was stunned. His summary was right on target. When I asked how he knew what my institution had said, he
told me that he had worked for the EEOC until retiring a few years ago, and that the response SDS had made regarding the
EEOC findings in my favor was the standard response to a favorable finding for the plaintiff. He then commented wryly,
"If the finding is for the university, it´s a press opportunity, but if it´s for the charging party, then
it´s a flawed investigation." Go figure.
-wage@wage.org-