EEOC Effectiveness of Response to My Complaint Based on Strategy Directions Selected by

Agency Head and Analysis of EEOC Response in my case


Identification of a Class Action Suit and Significant Discrimination by EEOC --- FAILURE!


I believe "a class" of annuitants was further discriminated against because of age due to the University retirement formula that uses age (called an
"age factor") to determine the percentage of retirement pay given to an annuitant which violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended. 

Ucla Presentation including Age factor by Benefits Office

UCR Powerpoints (PDF Format) related to class claim


EEOC Charges Received

Purported Agency Success Rate per approximately 100,000 cases submitted.  Less than 2% of the cases are selected although the agency does not present the statistics in a meaningful way for translation.  Overall:

This shows a failure in strategic objective 1 in the agency as described in Failure of Agency Objective in raw numbers and United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 - 2016

Do you think outcome 1.A was successful in this case?  Answer: NO

Do you think outcome 1.B was successful in this case?  Answer: NO

Question: Will the agency have a "broad impact" at the national or local levels by throwing the case out?  Answer: No

Question: Do you think the agency remedied discriminatory practices and secured "meaningful relief" for victims of discrimination in this case by throwing it out?   Answer: NO

Question: Is it "strategic law enforcement" to deny discrimination claims using 180 day and 300 day rules? Is that the definition of "strategic"? If tenure is longer than the rules apply, how does that comport with the rules?   Answer: The case demonstrates bureacratic bungling in meeting objectives

Background: Given a case of a UC faculty member with tenure being denied EEOC representation in court....

Question: Do you believe "education and outreach to the public" is the most important aspect of the EEOC strategic plan (or was accomplished) given the denial of enforcement of this case using the 180 day and 300 day rules?  Answer: No

Question: Do you think the agency delivered "excellent and consistent service" through a "skilled and diverse workforce" and "effective systems" by throwing the case out and blaming the victim?   Answer: No

Question: Do you think the proper definition of retaliation is "the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit" when in this case the University filed a protection order against the victim? In filing that protection order, EEOC did not have a definition of retaliation that properly encompasses the employer's retaliation against the victim using civil law to obstruct employment laws (18 USC 242 violation). Do you think that is true?   Answer: YES, the definition is wrong

If the overall evaluation of the EEOCs mission using this case was to: "Stop and Remedy Unlawful Employment Discrimination", How would you say the agency did? Do you think they handle employment retaliation well? Do you think it will have broad impact? 

The agency failed.  They did not understand the problem explained in the slides above and emeritus rights.  The agency cannot have broad impact throwing away cases.

The EEOCs vision is: Justice and Equality in the Workplace. Given this:

How would you say the agency did?  FAILURE
Do you think this agency grade should be raised or lowered based on what you have seen with this case?  LOWERED
Do you think this agency grade should be raised or lowered on how it handled it to meet strategic objectives? LOWERED

Do you think this agencies list of laws not enforced at this agency adds impact to its broad impact statement?  LESSENS IMPACT

EEOC Laws not enforced