A Comparative Analysis of Employment Discrimination Case Outcomes

Abstract

The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) processes tens of thousands of charges annually. Every year, the outcome of those charges are tabulated and presented for public inspection. Yet, very little known as to how effectively the EEOC processes these charges. To that end, this article seeks to analyze the processing of EEOC complaints in comparison with case outcomes as adjudicated in Federal Court. This comparison is premised on Congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C § 2000e-4 Sec. 705 et seq.) which bars cases from litigation until all administrative remedies are exhausted. Using the EEOC’s publicly facing statistics webpage and the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) database, an institutional comparative is applied. Upon analysis, the results demonstrate that aggrieved parties are best served in Federal Court. For every comparative outcome measured, parties overwhelmingly fared better in Federal Court than they did with the EEOC. The divergence in outcomes appears to be rooted in procedural and structural defects present in the EEOC’s handling of charges. Many of these defects have been addressed in past scholarship (Selmi 1996; Modesitt 2010; Engstrom 2013) but remain largely intact. In the absence of any reform, the EEOC is largely an ineffectual agency that leaves millions of Americans vulnerable to the scourge of employment discrimination.