the eeoc has done the intake on. >> does the state eeoc officers receive -- eeoc offices receive these types of complaints? >> i am referring to the state level officers. the state and local human rights commissions -- in those instances where we have an agreement, they can take charge. or we can and they are dual filed so the individual's rights are preserved under the federal and local law, even though it may be one agency or the other that is doing the investigation. >> is my understanding that when the -- when a complaint is filed , the eeoc tries to mediated between the parties. if mediation fails e -- either eeoc picks up the case and tries it or a right to sue letter is issued. how long does it take to get after mediation that challenge of taking after a complaint is filed to a right to sue issue is ordered? >> we are provided with a hundred -- we are provided with a hundred 80 days. longer in some cases. some it is less, and some it is more. >> how long does it take to get to a hearing? >> i was talking to the private sector process. if you are talking about the federal sector

office as opposed to state eeoc offices? >> yes those were private sector charges so the numbers i gave you relate specifically to private sector charges that eeoc has done the intake on. >> and the state eeoc office receive these types of complaints? >> i'm referring to our 50 field offices of the eeoc. we also have in work share agreements with state and local government fair employment practice agencies so the state and local human rights commissions they are often called. in those instances where we have an agreement they can take the charge or we can't and it's usually dual filed so the individual's rights are preserved under both the federal and local law even though it may be one agency or the other that is doing the investigation. >> it's my understanding that when the complaint is filed the eeoc or other agencies try to mediate it between the parties and then if mediation fails the eeoc picks up the case and tries to write this sue letter issued how long is it taking after mediation, how long is it taking before the

are these complaints directly to your eeoc office as opposed to state eeoc office is? >> yes. those were private sector charges. so those numbers i gave you relate specific to the private sector charges that eeoc has done the intake on. >> and to state eeoc offices also receive these types of complaints? >> i am referring to our 50 field offices of the eeoc. we also have in many work sharing agreements with many state and local governments, fair employment practice agencies and so the state and local human rights commission after often called and so in those instances where we have an agreement they can take the charge that we can and is usually dual filed so that individuals rights are preserved under both the federal and local law, even though it may be one agency or the other that is doing the investigation. >> is my understanding when a complaint is filed the eeoc or these other agencies tried to mediate it between the parties. and then if mediation fails either eeoc picks up the case and tries it or a right to sue letter is issued. how long is it taking after mediation, h

the eeoc is doing. talk to us about the nature of the complaints you have received over the last few years since you have been under taking this data collection. >> certainly. the eeoc began tracking the private sector charge data and federal sector appeals of data in terms of sexual discrimination in january 2013. for the final three quarters of fiscal year 2013, we received 667 dissemination charges related to sexual orientation. 100 6160 grit -- sex discrimination relating to

theory of the case was. -- what the eeoc theory of the case was. i and yo -- and eager to hear that. >> there is duty to accommodate a religious practice anytime the employer has a correct understanding or suspicion of that practice. the theory has not been that abercrombie acted based on assumptions about the religion. i think one way that we know that it is, let's assume that the policy did apply at the interview. under the eeoc theory, if the interviewer suspected that the applicant or correctly understood as justice breyer prefers, though the applicant wore it for religious purposes, there would be a duty to accommodate. regardless of whether abercrombie did or did not make assumptions. if the policy apply to the interview, there would be a duty to accommodate based on that understanding. the problem with that rule is that employers to protect themselves in the future from having a jury find that they must have correctly understood that a particular -- >> what is the difference between that? >> could you finish your thought? >> the only way tha

so, after this start, the eeoc and eeoc emerged leader in shaping the law of sex discrimination. did they do that? first, through the commission decisions but it issued. initially it didn't have a strong enforcement authority but it did have to did have the requirement of taking in charges and investigating. they thought there was reasonable cause and in the early years, those decisions were all issued by the commission. actually they came up to the commission. the fact of the investigation came up and the commission issued the commission decisions explaining why there was cause. all of the commission decisions were confidential for them in the statute. we cannot disclose the name of the charging party or the respondent. the analysis was actually used by the court as they were figuring out what title vii should be in so use the commission decisions and we issued guidance to explain the view of the law as you heard congress didn't give us in in the title vii of the authority to issue substantive regulation only procedural regulations. obviously there was no prohibition on gatherin

the eeoc has made clear -- >> the question is supposed to be why are you wearing a beard? >> no, the question is we have a work rule that prohibits facial hair on the -- >> so that doesn't cover anything that's not immediately apparent by the appearance. they can have a code of conduct that presumably would go through several pagesser ooh, are all -- pages, here are all of the things we require. any problem with them? >> your honor, i actually think that this is -- the employer is at no risk of liability if he asks no questions but makes no assumptions and stereotypes. and that's why i don't think what your honor is hypothesizing turns out to be a problem in practice. what is going on is that in the mind run of cases that the eeoc brings that we see in these cases is you're talking about a work rule, you're talking about you must wear pants at work, and the employer has a religious okay thinks women should wear skirts. you're talking about a no long hair policy you're talking about groom and garb. and the concern is will you be able to comply in the future. the employer do

the eeoc recognized title vii prohibition on sex discrimination. federally this grants protection to lgbt and transgender nonconforming people. in 2014 the president issued an executive order protect federal employee, foed contractors from discrimination. however, to ensure that workplace termination against lgbt employees is eradicated we need inclusion in federal legislation prohibiting employment discrimination. without establishing sexual orientation and gender identity as protect classes employers are likely to be unaware of the protection under federal law. also likely unaware of their right to be free from discrimination on the job or take recourse. passage of such leverage acceleration would serve to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the same way that title vii of the civil rights act of '64 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. in conclusion workplace discrimination is a pervasive issue that prevents employees from meaningful contrib

we have heard from the eeoc and the department of labor. we know the office of personnel management supports title vii covering gender identity and sexual orientation. we also know that the case law is decidedly mixed with a number of cases, particularly on sexual orientation holding that dimmest -- discrimination is not sex discrimination under title vii making it free for employers in 28 states to openly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as well. we need a federal protections. we ask that those protections be further in whatever is possible by this commission. we also want to ensure that protections do not include overly broad religious exemptions or a licensed to discriminate, which is why we no longer support the current version -- the previous version of the employment nondiscrimination act which contained overly broad exemptions that would be. in the wake of the positive ruling of marriage and a wave of victories at the district and circuit court levels, we have seen a number of states and act laws to

many have joined the eeoc. citations to the doj and the attorney general's memorandum on the topic are included in my testimony. by fellow panelists will address developments at the u.s. department of labor and will note that the u.s. office of personal management has issued guidance for federal agencies and employees on this topic. thank you again for the opportunity to participate and i look forward to answering any questions that you may have. >> i am the principal deputy assistant secretary. the department is making enormous strides to provide legal protection for lesbian gay, bisexual, and transgender workers and i am proud to be here today to share our compliments. -- share our accomplishments. we are strongest when we embrace diversity and that means opening doors of opportunity to everyone and realizing that the american dream excludes some. we make sure these basic values are reflected in the full range of our activity. first, we are hard at work on implementation on an executive order, that prohibits

is involved. >> now we're talking about a whole different issue when the eeoc gets involved. >> wouldsue to you? would the panty raid be an issue to us? >> that's up to you. i'm just saying i used it -- >> there we go. >> i think it's a badge of honor. >> dagen, should this stuff even be an issue? >> your criminal record is is an issue if you're a security guard and a felon. >> would you have fired gas preen know knowing that? >> it it was a misdemeanor. no. >> did you take panties? >> charlie and dagen have to go. we will have more right after this. spending time with him were the best memories of my life. i became a physician at va because of my grandfather. so i can help others like him. i can't imagine working with better doctors, or a more dedicated staff. i'm fulfilling my life's mission with the help of my team and thanks to these veterans. i'm proud to be a doctor at va and proud to honor my grandfather every day. search va careers to find out more. >>> two names to get you going. charles. >> whirlpool by one or two shares anytime you get a chance. >> adam. >> hedj, a currency

is involved. >> now we're talking about a whole different issue when the eeoc gets involved. >> would it be an issue to you? would the panty raid be an issue to us? >> that's up to you. i'm just saying i used it -- >> there we go. >> i think it's a badge of honor. >> dagen, should this stuff even be an issue? >> your criminal record is is an issue if you're a security guard and a felon. >> would you have fired gas preen know knowing that? >> it it was a misdemeanor. no. >> did you take panties? >> charlie and dagen have to go. we will have more right after this. bring us your baffling. bring us your audacious. we want your sticky notes, sketchbooks, and scribbles. let's pin 'em to the wall. kick 'em around. kick 'em around, see what happens. because we're in the how-do-i-get-this-startup- off-the-ground business. the taking-your-business- global-business. we're in the problem-solving business. 400,000 people - ready to help you solve problems while they're still called opportunities. from figuring it out to getting it done we're here to help. ♪ at mfs, we believe in the power of activ

summarizes action theeoc has taken -- the eeoc has taken with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity. the strategic enforcement plan adopted by bipartisan vote in december 2012, includes as one of its enforcement priorities -- >> we will stop your time. >> thank you. [laughter] >> the commission's strategic enforcement plan adopted by bipartisan vote in december 2012, includes one of his enforcement priorities the coverage of lgbt individuals under title vii sex

is involved. >> now we're talking about a whole different issue when the eeoc gets involved. >> wouldt be an issue to you? would the panty raid be an issue to us? >> that's up to you. i'm just saying i used it -- >> there we go. >> i think it's a badge of honor. >> dagen, should this stuff even be an issue? >> your criminal record is is an issue if you're a security guard and a felon. >> would you have fired gas preen know knowing that? >> it it was a misdemeanor. no. >> did you take panties? >> charlie and dagen have to go. we will have more right after this. >>> two names to get you going. charles. >> whirlpool by one or two shares anytime you get a chance. >> adam. >> hedj, a currency hedged european fund. >> thank you very much. david asman right now. >>> he served the united states with honor and distinction and we'll have the opportunity eventually to learn what that is tran sierd in the past years. >> that was then and now we have learned. army sergeant bowe bergdahl is being charged with desertion. ten months after being swapped by the administration for five senior taliban me

eeoc the -- the eeoc the purpose to force it. >> so we give -- what do you call the other kind?e, you give that to me even when i'm in dissent. that just means treat it for what it's worth. >> the eeoc sets the enforcement policy for the federal sector with respect to this issue. that's a significant fact. we took it into consideration in deciding what the position of the united states should be. >> would your position here be the same if the 2014 guideline had not been adopted? >> we didn't take that position before the 2014 guideline had been adopted, justice kennedy. i just don't know how to answer that question because we took the position in light of the guidance it adopted in 2014, which we do consider to be significant and we do have to weigh our interests as enforcer of the law as well as employer. we did so on a considered basis and we came to the judgment that we thought was the correct judgment in the meaning of the statute. >> we don't give you any more deference than we give to the eeoc right? >> with respect to this, i think the court has to decide what the best re

i would like to turn to the question of the eeoc. justice: there are individuals who are injured off the job that lose their.licenses. ms. halligan: and pursuant to the connecttive bargaining agreement they are accommodated. but those jobs, the individuals who lose their.certification. they are heavy-lifting jobs. the district court at page 36-a and 59-a and the individuals who lose their license can perform any number of demanding physical tasks which ms. young on could not perform. with respect to the eeoc guidance, the guidance which was issued two weeks after is 180-degree change from the position that the government has consistently taken and the postal service that the u.p.s. looked to to obtain what the laws, the policy it still has in place today. in addition, the plose in issuing that guidance was rushed. not until 2015 that the eeoc even identified the question of pregnancy accommodations as an emerging or developing issue. justice ginsburg: the original guideline as i understand eeoc, all we're doing in 2014 is explaining

the eeoc recognized title vii prohibition on sex discrimination. lgtb and gender nonconforming people. in 2014 the president issued an executive order protect federal employee, federal contractors from discrimination. however, to ensure that workplace discrimination against lgbt employees is eradicated we need inclusion in federal legislation prohibiting employment discrimination. without establishing sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes employers are likely to be unaware of their potential liability under federal law. lgtb and gender nonconforming employees are also likely unaware of their right to be free from discrimination on the job or take recourse. passage of such legislation to prohibit on the basis of discrimination on the basis of sexual or orientation or gender identity in the same way that title vii of the civil rights act of '64 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. in conclusion, workplace discrimination is a pervasive issue that prevents employees from meaningfu

and firing rate for the example code of ministerial exemption examined by the supreme court versus eeoc exempts employers from discrimination when making employment decisions involving ministerial staff. this exemption has been extended by the court to include many other non- ministerial employees whose job is to serve a religious function including professors, teachers and even a cemetery personnel. additional exemptions are not only necessary but could lead to adverse consequences for discrimination protection. if nondiscrimination provisions protecting the workers from discrimination on the job will not infringe upon the religious beliefs of employers. employers already have these ample protections under the first amendment and explicit statutory exemptions. the courts have also not been shy of playing bees in the rights liberally. the supreme court noted that the u.s. constitution gives a special solitude to the rights of religious organizations. the supreme court has also recognized that the government has a unique and compelling interest in protecting against employment discrimina

i've had also our eeoc people looking at this. we will -- we're commencing an investigation, not only of the chapter, because that action has been taken about the chapter. we know enough to have closed the chapter immediately. but we are also going to look at any individual perpetrators, particularly those that we think have taken a lead in this kind of activity. and we have, we have a student code which prevents discrimination of any kind. it prevents those who would create a hostile environment for the education and students and it's based on title six of the civil rights law of 1964. so we're examining and we're investigating at this point in time whether we will be able to take any individual action against students. evidence has to be collected. that process must be very carefully directed. and so we are, with great care, we're conducting an investigation that is appropriate into the individual actions of students so see if we can take additional action against those individual student leaders who were most involved in this i

the past, i'd say, three years, is that i'm not sure what it is but something is going on with the eeoc where valid cases are being ignored, dragged out and in my estimation killed, and i've been able to, through writing letters to the department of justice, directly to eric holder, and directly to the president, really pushing for them to do some oversight so that these cases, these valid cases don't get dismissed. do you have any insight into this and any recommendation? >> host: we'll keep her on the line in case professor has a followup question. >> guest: first of all sandra i'm really interested in what you're doing. i think it's very honorable what you're trying to do in terms of helping other people who are not in a position to find somebody else who can give them guidance, but i frankly don't know anything about what is going on with eeoc right now so i can't answer your questions. but what i would urge you to do is to -- you said you have written and you have tried to reach out. my suggestion would be to think about writing something like an op-ed that could be published in a

but i frankly don't know anything about what is going onwith with eeoc right now.ou so i can't answer your question but, what i would urge you to do is to and you said, you know ha you've written and you have tried to to reach out. my suggestion would be to think about writing something like an op-ed that could be published in a newspaper that might then be read by other people who could who would then contact you and give you perhaps better suggestions at, because they're more knowledgeable. i think you would benefit but i also think having the issues that you'ree putting out today, put out more publicly with with something written in "the new york times," in a magazine, on the web i just think that you're in a position t to try and get more peopleged engaged in the issue that you're. trying to raise. >> host: all right. we're getting a lot of these comments on facebook so i thought i would let you address them. we'll get them out of the way. jane asked, wasn't she not paying taxes or social securityja on her nanny? >> guest: got me confused with another woman, baird. >> host: have y

tell me where you we will find a lawyer and how much money you have for a cushion to wait for the eeoc to decide to do his job? tell me. >> maybe you try to engage people's compassion, but if you know the law you can use it as a weapon to achieve your objectives, and i have to disagree with you. >> is a fair disagreement but i we will tell you this i am eloquent i am intelligent, i am a very very accomplished person. had i been able to access a lawyer, honey, don't think i didn't drive. i called 18 i called 18 lawyers, 14 locally, city and state legislators can senators said the damn letter to the white house. i could not get my oven gloves. >> you persisted and here you are and all of us are listening to say that. >> and that is fantastic fantastic, but tell me about the 45 million other people the still don't. >> but i love this. people -- people formerly known as the audience. >> i love that. >> but i think you and i deeply agree on this. this. i just want to check. >> i think -- i think we need the different ways to get to it. >> i think that is right. >> so we are right up against

that we get are in states where there is no protection, and it has only been recently in light of the eeoc ruling that we have seen an expansion of title vii perhaps being available as a vehicle. many times the most difficult answer we give to people when they call saying that they have suffered some adverse employment action is, i'm is i'm sorry, there is nothing that we can do. there is no protection in your state. it does not mean that it is not happening. the numbers are significant. the nature is the gamut. most of the calls that we get are probably all on two tracks. either an employee is going along fine doing a good job, getting good performance reviews, doing reviews, doing well, being promoted, and then something happens where they are discovered to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender someone sees transgender someone sees a facebook post, they do get married and a couple people in the office attend the wedding and then the rest of the office realizes, we did not know we had a gay or lesbian or bisexual person working for us. or in or in some other manner they come after someon

weaver filed an eeoc lawsuit and she prevailed. and you can't have to necessarily go to eeoc on every days. there was donna smith who lives on maryland's eastern shore. she worked as a retail clerk. she was also told thought not to discuss her -- she was also told not to discuss her wages but when she found out she was paid less than male clerks, a guy clerk whom she actually trained and was doing the same exact job -- again all the effort to go to the eeoc, found out that two other female workers were also discriminated against. no one would have known donna had she not sought out that information. so we can see that paycheck fairness is absolutely needed. madam president, there is a lot of mythology out there about the paycheck fairness act. number one -- myth number one: that the bill would require employers to cut the salaries of their male glees. -- male employees. employers are prohibited from lowering the wages of men to make up for the wages of women. another myth: that the bill is unnecessary. for american women who work f

a good colleague of mine with the eeoc, and part of it for us is figuring out what we need to do.hese numbers say -- i am an organizer, not a statistician -- what does this say about what we need to be doing to address this data? how do we did down deeper? that is where we are trying to go with the black women's roundtable. that is why we're over here, and we have these policies we are trying to promote. i know we are going to talk about loretta lynch, and i hope we do before i leave, but we are trying to figure out how to address public policy, which will take a long time, and how to we get to addressing it on a state-level? that is why we are going from washington d.c., into the states, where you have a state policy of raising the minimum wage, for example. that could fall more in the lower-wage jobs with an education. people are graduating, having degrees, bachelors masters, and still i have to go to mcdonald's. there is nothing wrong with mcdonald's. we had a woman from maryland with us yesterday, and she has eight mcdonald's that she owns. she started out low-wage, and she no