and this directive structure alignment issue is an eeoc directive. and the problem with it is that when you have the same agency official, ieceven if they're sag they're not personally responsible but they are responsible for executing and advising on personnel matters and actions is the same person that's going to be managing and advising and overseeing the eeo complaint process, there's still that appearance or potential conflict of interest there. these functions need to be separate because the eeo's program processes are to scrutinize and challenge the motivations, impacts of the personnel decisions. and with the eeoc already pointing out this deficiency several times to the va and the e, oc also has agreed to work with them to provide technical assistance, we just think that the va should get in line with this eeoc directive. >> well thank you once again for your comments. my time support. with that i'd like to turn things over to general bergman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, again, before i start, you know, as one of the or

once it goes to the eeoc for hearings, i lose all of that. and so our goal is to have everything resolved informally. and the more timely individuals come to us and the more dispute resolution we can do, the better we are at that. once it's turned over to the eeoc, i will defer to them -- >> i just -- i know my time is running short here. what i heard you say was 50% of the cases are resolved. >> yes, sir. >> okay. so then the reminder 50%, you get your work done within 90 days. >> that is correct, sir. >> of that remaining 50%, what percentage of that goes past the 90 days and goes into the -- you know, the tunnel to nowhere? >> so it depends on the individual and the individual gets to select what their next source of action is either to go to the eeoc or to another office to complain with that. but frankly if the claim is accept accepted and not all of them are accepted, it fits their category of timeliness, it's one of the protected categories, those sorts of things, it will go to the eeoc and we will track it through its finish, but we d

the eeoc has found that the great recession during president bush's administration "forced many older workers to revive their retirement plans to work longer to recoup drained retirement accounts and lost savings." so here's the question because i think it is going to be an increasing problem for the court. what do you understand to be the purpose of age discrimination -- of the age discrimination in employment act? judge barrett: i joined a court,y of the unlock that was a case that we heard as a full-court. the question is whether the prohibition on age discrimination covers applicants were only employees. and the statute said employees. and so, in applicant is an employee. -- applicant isn't an employee. the statute by its terms do not cover the conduct. but i think that is an instance -- i talked yesterday quite a is toout whose role it update statutes or extend them and i think that is an instance in which congress could well address this problem by amending the statute to include applicant in it. sen. feinstein: so, where we do stand on the general subject matter? judge barrett:

the first was eeoc versus autozone. she voted to not rehear a panel decision that in essence approved a separate but equal arrangement. where she joined an opinion that effectively approved of age discrimination against job applicants. in a little more depth why the lawyers committee was concerned about judge barrett's record on workers and civil rights? >> thank you, senator. in the area of workers rights we examined, judge merrick demonstrated an inclination to with corporations and employers over employees. we are deeply concerned about the eeoc versus autozone case. judge barrett essentially, along with four other judges, refused to pay federal government request for a full panel review of a case involving an employer, here autozone, which chose to intentionally segregate employees on the basis of race. they assigned employees based on race. they did so flippantly. found this was not becausesegregation people were paid the same and received benefits. we find this deeply disturbing. we do not need to return to -- era

the eeoc has found that the great recession during president forced administration " many older workers to revive their retirement plans to work longer to recoup drained retirement accounts and lost savings." the question, because i think it is going to be an increasing problem. understand to be the purpose of age discrimination, of the age discrimination in employments? judge barrett: in clever versus sion, that was a case that we heard as a full-court and the question is whether the prohibition on age discrimination covered applicants or only employees. employees,tute said and so in applicant's and an employee. so the majority said that the statute by its turn did not cover the conduct. but i think that is an instance, i talked yesterday quite a bit about whose role it is to update statutes or extend than anything that is an instance in which congress could well address this problem to include applicants in it. sen. feinstein: so, where would you stand on the general subject matter? judge barrett: well, since i can't impose the law, that would be up to the congress to decide. differen

according to the eeoc, study after study has shown age discrimination "remains a significant barrier for older workers." and older applicants are more frequently denied job interviews than middle aged applicants. additionally, older and middle-aged women are subjected to more age discrimination than men. the eeoc has found that the great recession during president bush's administration "forced many older workers to revive their retirement plans to work longer to recoup drained retirement accounts and lost savings." so here's the question, because i think it's going to be an increasing problem for the court. what do you understand to be the purpose of age descripen -- of the age discrimination and employment act? >> well, in clever versus care fusion i joined a majority of the au vaunt court. and the provision age discrimination covered applicants or only employees. the statute said employees, and so an applicant isn't an employee. so the majority said that the statute by its terms didn't cover the contact. but i think that's an instance, know, i talked yesterday quite a bit about who

our acting chief of our eeoc. >> thank you, good afternoon, everyone. that is something we directly support here. we have about 90 we have about 95 people that we still serving as of 2 pm today. i imagine the number will go down now that we have some areas that have been downgraded. it includes about 48 folks or households that are being housed our partner, in noncarbonated dorms, so we are very, very grateful for that partnership. we are ready as soon as appropriate and approved to support our population with safety equipment, anticipation point centers. at this time, the county of sonoma is planning to have them at the sequoia elementary, as well as the sonoma valley regional parks. please stay tuned for that information, but again, that gets activated, deployed, and -- >> it was into an update on the glass fire from fire officials there. we are going to keep listening to that and dip and again at i'm voting 'yes' on prop 19 to help california's most vulnerable. over 24,000 homes were destroyed by wildfires in less than two years. too many of those vi

in the west zone, excuse me if there is too much background noise, i am here at the sonoma county eeoc but for the start of the day here at sonoma county, things are looking well, as we enter into the period of the red flag here, obviously our concerns are without northwest wind, the perimeter in the sugarloaf state park area, and if that fire gets across the line that we have established down there, it will create a much larger area that we are going to have to fall back to, to capture the ridges that we need to contain this fire. so, that is our largest concern here in the west zone today. however, the wind, the prevailing winds are blowing the fire's edge back in on itself, out in the sharp road, gates road area, and crews are continuing to reinforce the control lines that we have out there, to ensure that we hold that for the duration of the fire. the other item i have for you, the ray of good news out of this disaster, is that the 5% containment that we have on the fire, is the area that extends across the backside of rankin valley, skyhawk, hamel drive and over toward springlake.

they will be controlled by eeoc in the squad.he radical party that they are a part of and they are leading. biden is planning to pack the courts and while he's at it he wants to get statehood for d.c., puerto rico. that's for democratic senate seats and they will have the majority of perpetuity. they want to ditch the electoral college also. they certainly will get rid of the legislative filibuster and how do we know? chuck schumer is telling us that. the radical base once total control of the u.s. government or at least until the socialist utopia is fully achieved. now, this week in particular the democrats in the socialist base, guess what, they did not think kamala harris was liberal enough in her debate with mike pence so they put out to their list of demands. it is called the people's charter and basically just a rebranding of their green new deal. free everything for everybody. socialism for all. we can only assume it's a matter of time before the charter makes its way onto biden's website. tonight, if you value honesty, tr

. >> we have evacuated our operation center and basically the eeoc helped support all the departments or divisions working this incident. we have also up staffed our fire riggs, fire engines. >> reporter: special forestry cruiser patrolling the hills to make sure downed trees don't block the only roads in and out of the area. while some have opted to leave the area as a precaution, tonight others like jim sweeney have decided to remain at home. >> i decided, again, i didn't think the odds were really much -- that scary. >> reporter: because of the high fire danger, pg&e shutoff power to dozens of homes in the berkeley hills. around 8:00 tonight. and could potentially shutoff power to potentially 800 customers in the area overnight. firefighters are also working with ham radio operators who are out there in the berkeley hills. they are looking for hot spots. they are looking for trees that may have come down and blocking roads or looking for downed power lines as well. it's all hands on deck tonight. reporting live in berkeley, marianne favro, nbc bay area news. >> sure is, marianne. t

there was ananother case that we have heard about during thee week, eeoc versus autozone.his is a case i involving autozozone's decision to assign workers to different sites based on their race. they would assign black workers to particular stores based on race of the emploloyee and babad on the preredominant race of employees seserved, and did d te same w with tino''s. -- with latinos. and here the client who was at the center of this case was a black worker assigned to the south side of chicago. ultimatetely, the court found employees were still paid the same and received the same benefits and had the same job responsibilitieses, so judge babarrett refefused to rehear te casese. but i think that is very dangerouous. this is auautozone, essentially putting i in a separate but equl racial doctrine e in the workplplace. i think thehe sum total of these two cases makes clear she will likely look at cases involving allegations of discrimination with great skepticism and will likely always -- if not the majority of thee time -- side with corporations and employers. that is unf

. >> in 2017, in a case called eeoc v. auto zone, the seventh circuit, your circuit, issued an opinion which permitted an employer to intentionally sign its employees to specific stores due to their race. the dissent in this opinion argued it allowed them to establish equal but separate facilities and argued if upheld, this decision would be, quote, contrary to the position the supreme court has taken in analogous equal protection cases. the case was appealed to the full panel of the seventh and you sided, as i understand it, with the majority to deny a rehearing and let the opinion stand, is that correct? >> that is correct. and i think i need to give a little context for what it means to vote do deny to rehear something on bunk. our court, like the supreme court, doesn't take cases just because we think the panel got it wrong. there's a lot of deference to panels, rule 35 of the rules of appellate procedure constrains and limits the times in which we take the resources of the full court to hear a full case. i was not on

the eeoc has found that the great recession during president bush's administration quote forced many older workers to revive their retirement plans to work longer to recoup drained retirement accounts and lost savings. so here is the question because i think it is going to be an increasing problem for the court. what do you understand to be the purpose of age dis-- of the age discrimination in employment act? >> well, in kleber versus care fusion i joined the majority of the court. it was a case we heard as the full court. the question is whether the prohibition on age discrimination covered applicants or only employees. and the statute said employees and so an applicant isn't an employee. so the majority said that the statute by its terms didn't cover the conduct. but i think that's an instance. i talked yesterday quite a bit about whose role it is to update statutes or extend them. i think that's an instance in which congress could well address this problem by amending the statute to include applicants in it. >> so where would you stand on the general subject matter? >> well, since

accusing thomas of sexually harassing her when she worked at the eeoc.ed to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal. >> her motives dissected. >> do you have a martyr complex? >> no, i don't. >> and additional witnesses who may have corroborated her story were never called to publicly testify. >> the idea that anyone who is saying what i had to say is going to be heard with the sort of out the window, the republicans were in control. and joe biden lost control. >> some say you let the republicans take over? >> i don't think i did. but i wish i could have done it differently under the rules. certain rules you cannot call people out of order if they're asking questions that are related to the issue. i wish i could have done better for her. the truth is i believed her, and i believed he should not be in the court. >> sexual harassment is a serious matter, and in my view, any person guilty of this offense is unsuited to serve not only -- >> biden led the floor fight against thomas and lost. >> as a black american, as far as i'm concerned, it's

the first was eeoc versus autozone. she voted to not rehear a panel decision that in essence approved a separate but equal arrangement. where she joined an opinion that effectively approved of age discrimination against job applicants. in a little more depth why the lawyers committee was concerned about judge barrett's record on workers and civil rights? >> thank you, senator. in the area of workers rights we examined, judge merrick demonstrated an inclination to with corporations and employers over employees. we are deeply concerned about the eeoc versus autozone case. judge barrett essentially, along with four other judges, refused to pay federal government request for a full panel review of a case involving an employer, here autozone, which chose to intentionally segregate employees on the basis of race. they assigned employees based on race. they did so flippantly. found this was not becausesegregation people were paid the same and received benefits. we find this deeply disturbing. we do not need to return to -- era

the eeoc has found that the great recession during president forced administration " many older workersrevive their retirement plans to work longer to recoup drained retirement accounts and lost savings." the question, because i think it is going to be an increasing problem. understand to be the purpose of age discrimination, of the age discrimination in employments? judge barrett: in clever versus sion, that was a case that we heard as a full-court and the question is whether the prohibition on age discrimination covered applicants or only employees. employees,tute said and so in applicant's and an employee. so the majority said that the statute by its turn did not cover the conduct. but i think that is an instance, i talked yesterday quite a bit about whose role it is to update statutes or extend than anything that is an instance in which congress could well address this problem to include applicants in it. sen. feinstein: so, where would you stand on the general subject matter? judge barrett: well, since i can't impose the law, that would be up to the congress to decide. different pr

in 2017, in a case called eeoc v.utozone the seventh circuit, your circuit, issued an opinion which permitted an employer to intentionally assign its employees to specific stores due to their race. the dissent in this opinion argued the decision permitted employers to legally establish separate, but equal, facilities and argued, if upheld, this decision would be "contrary to the position the supreme court has taken in analogous equal protection cases as far back as brown v. board of education. the case was appealed to the full panel." you sided with the majority to deny a rehearing and let the opinion stand. is that correct? judge barrett: that is correct and i think i need to give a little context for what it means to vote to deny to rehear something. our court, just like the supreme court, does not take cases just because we think the panel got it wrong. rule 35 of the appellate procedure constrained the limits and the times in which we take the resources of the full court to rehear a case. i was not on that panel a

in 2017 in a case called eeoc versus auto zone, the 7th circuit, your circuit, issued an opinion which permitted an employer to intentionally assign its employees to specific stores due to their race. the dissent in this opinion argued the decision permitted employers to legally establish separate but equal facilities and argued if upheld this decision would be, quote, contrary to the position that the supreme court has taken in analogous equal protection cases as far back as brown versus the board of education. the case was appealed to the full panel of the 7th and you sided as i understand it with the majority to deny a rehearing and let the opinion stand. is that correct? >> that is correct. and i think i need to give a little context to what it means to vote to deny and to rehear something on bonk. our court just like the supreme court doesn't take cases just because we think the panel got it wrong. there is a lot of deference to panels. rule 35 in the rules of appel yat procedures constrains and limits the time of the court to hear the case. i was not on that panel and i did not e