The investigators who discuss and process EEO claims know more about the EEO laws, their applications and the standards for a violation than the average private attorney who professes to be experienced in EEO matters. The value of private counsel tends to be their knowledge of the workings, requirements, and prior relevant decisions of the court systems. They are invaluable in court, but I've not been impressed with their utility in the administrative process. If EEOC determines that the case has litigation potential it will assign an attorney to ensure that the evidence obtained meets the courts' standards for submission.MOST administrative personnel who evaluate EEOC claims are not attorneys, but simply that, a case evaluator. A Right to sue letter has no weight in court anyway, as if that were the case any plaintiff who files suit would most automatically win, and we know this is not the case.
It's pretty well established that a probable cause letter makes it easier for an individual to obtain competent private counsel. And, a full EEOC investigation can significantly reduce the amount of discovery and decrease the cost of litigation for the individual. The last time I looked at the statistics, individuals who sue following a probable cause have a higher chance of winning in federal district court than those with no probable cause decisions. However, I have to acknowledge that winning an EEO case in federal district court is not easy and defendants tend to do much better than plaintiffs.
It's required because that's the way Congress wrote the laws. And, the Equal Pay Act is not equal to any Title VII claim. The Equal Pay Act only requires equal pay for equal work. Under Title VII, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:Discrimination under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is = to any Title 7 claim, yet no such permission to sue, or the filing of a complaint with any agency is mandated. I for one, do not understand why such is required by law as in an EEOC complaint?
* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment. See www.eeoc.gov
Where did I indicate that EEOC represents many complainants in court? While I didn't reference the relationship between the individual and the government agency if the matter is in Court, I expressly advised that the government agency does not represent the individual during the administrative process.I don't have any stats to back me up on that, but it just stands to reason the gov. does NOT represent that many EEOC complainants in court.