Invalidating session on differences between dating relationship marriage
Mc Lean Trucking Co., 525 F.2d 1007, 1010 (6th Cir. Enforcement actions for the purpose of advancing the public interest in the elimination of employment discrimination are squarely within the EEOC's authority "to vindicate rights belonging to the United States as sovereign." Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d at 1543 (citation omitted). Conclusion For the reasons set forth and discussed above, an employer may not interfere with an individual=s protected right under Title VII, the EPA, the ADA, or the ADEA to file a charge, testify, assist, or participate in any manner in an EEOC investigation, hearing, or proceeding. 4-11-97 /s/ _______________ ____________________________________ Date Gilbert F. Although the enforcement guidance addresses this issue primarily in the context of the private sector, the principles and considerations discussed herein are equally applicable to the federal sector. Title VII, for example, provides that: it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this title, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title. Investigators should take and process charges in conformity with priority charge processing procedures regardless whether the charging party has signed a waiver of his or her right to file a charge. If a charging party has been required to relinquish his or her right to file a charge or participate in a commission investigation, hearing, or proceeding, a cause determination should be issued. 1987) (invalidating as contrary to public policy retirement plan provision that conditioned higher benefits on retiree's promise not to assist in EEOC investigations). This notice to the EEOC serves to trigger law enforcement proceedings by the EEOC that include an investigation and, if there is a finding of discrimination, may include conciliation and litigation. 1987)(primary purpose of a charge under ADEA "is not to seek recovery from the employer but rather to inform the EEOC of possible discrimination").
Background Some employers attempt to limit an individual's right to file a charge or participate in an EEOC proceeding by requiring him or her to sign an agreement in which s/he relinquishes these statutory rights. Agreements that prevent employees from cooperating with EEOC during enforcement proceedings interfere with enforcement activities because they deprive the Commission of important testimony and evidence needed to determine whether a violation has occurred.
12101 et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U. Agreements extracting such promises from employees may also amount to separate and discrete violations of the anti-retaliation provisions of the civil rights statutes. Although [it] can secure specific relief, such as hiring or reinstatement ..., on behalf of discrimination victims, the agency is guided by 'the overriding public interest in equal employment opportunity ...
Notwithstanding the format or context of the agreement in which such language might appear, promises not to file a charge or participate in an EEOC proceeding are null and void as a matter of public policy. "[T]he EEOC is not merely a proxy for the victims of discrimination ....
Courts have consistently recognized that individuals possess a non-waivable right to file charges with the EEOC.
Cosmair, Inc., 821 F.2d at 1090 (invalidating former employee's promise not to file a charge with EEOC because it "could impede EEOC enforcement of the civil rights laws" and is void as against public policy); EEOC v.