STATEMENT OF DR. M. OSKOUI

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

Thank you for the privilege of this opportunity to appear before this Committee, here to discuss both the justification for and the level of funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for FY '78. It is important that this Committee be aware of EEOC shortcomings in accomplishing with its funding those worthy objectives which it has always promised in its budget justifications. I come to share with you a personal experience that I believe is relevant in your consideration of the budget appropriation for HOC. However, I have been encouraged to come here by others also who have experienced employment discrimination and retaliation at the University of Pittsburgh and who have sought corrective action through the EEOC, to no

avail.

As a tenured Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, I have had occasion, unfortunately, to file charges of employment discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC against my employer. My subsequent experiences with EEOC since 1974, however, have led me to conclude that OC has not and does not today use its funds effectively to achieve objectives mandated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to provide relief to individuals like myself and others similarly affected who are victims of discrimination and to eliminate discriminatory features of employment systems. In my case, EEOC after investigation made a finding and determination my charges were true, but thereafter, has failed utterly to take corrective or supportive actions and denied me legal support or any protection from further reprisal by my employer. The deficit in the handling of my case by EEOC as in the handling of the cases of numbers of others similarly affected individuals, has resulted in the employer attitude of arrogance, that it can violate equal employment opportunity law with immunity.

I myself have concluded that unless the HOC can be required to use its funds more effectively, this committee would be better advised to discontinue all funding of the EOC. It has been evident to many members of the Congress for some time and it is increasingly evident to citizens that there is a critical need for an alternative to the present 00, which will be a dependable source of Federal enforcement for equal employment opportunity in

our country. For, as it is, the EEOC by its existence, its published mandate, and advertising does considerable damage to complainants of discrimination by encouraging those affected to step forward and file charges because ultimately EEOC leaves discriminatory practices uncorrected and those affected exposed to further retaliation and discrimination, even loss of livelihood and unsupported because it does not bring all enforcement actions at its disposal into play. Better that the OC did not exist. For then, many of us would know, before so much damage is done, that there is still no effective agent and enforcer of non-discrimination in employment. We would do as countless others before us have done, that is, escape the unlawful environment, if one can. However, can ve, in fact, afford to retreat further in our indifference to the fate of individuals caught in unlawful employment treatment Ultimately further increase in indifference may create chaos in our democracy when people with rising expectations no longer accept the injustice and the fact there is not an effective institution of remedy under the law.

Therefore, the need now is not just to

routinely fund the HEOC with more and more but to ask the questions:

How many of the thousands of charges of discrimination has
the EEOC actually investigated ?

Of those relatively few that have been investigated and cause
determined, with respect to how many has EEOC actually taken
effective corrective action and as appropriate, assured the
injustice was redressed ?

And, how many cases has EEOC in fact, closed unresolved and not dealt with as an administrative solution to make its mis-management appear less gross to the Congress ?

Of the substantial numbers of charges of discrimination at the University of Pittsburgh where corrective action was and is needed, EEOC has not fulfilled its responsibility or risen to its mandate. That I know.

If you will permit me, a brief outline of my case, and the HBOC response will serve to illustrate.

In 1972 at the time the Congress extended the coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to universities and institutions of higher learning because of pervasive violations of the laws within these institutions, I protested several specific situations of employment discrimination at the University of Pittsburgh and made public statements in support of equal employment opportunity. As punishment for this, I have been progressively more severely harassed, dis

criminated and retaliated against. I was a recipient in that year of 1972 of a more than $122,000 Federal research grant by the National Institute of Health

based on their estimate of my qualifications qnd the merits of my research work.

It was by interference with the orderly performance and continuation of my research grant that my employer first harassed and retaliated for my outspokenness against discrimination. This as greatly hampered me in productivity of my Federal supported research grant. Matters have gone from bad to worse as the environment became more acrimonious.

In subsequent years no further salary advancement was made; I was increasingly ostracized, removed from teaching in my specialty of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, also general academic activities. My phone extension was disconnected; equal access to general departmental research facilities was denied. My name was removed from the Departmental Training Grant supported by the National Institutes of Health, which I helped develop and in which I was a participating faculty member.

Now, in 1977 I am totally excluded from all academic activities and responsiBecause of the vilification of my reputation as a scientist and teacher, I have no prospects of employment elsewhere unless my name is

bilities.

vindicated.

My attempts to resolve and correct the improper actions of my employer through internal academic procedures failed although my superior was found to have breached University policy and harassment continued and was enhanced. Therefore, I filed charges with EEOC in 1974 and in March 31, 1975 LEOC med e a finding and determination my charges of discrimination and retaliation were Conciliation efforts by EEOC were perfunctory and failed.

true.

Because of my filing charges with EEOC, the University of Pittsburgh subsequently heqped further retaliation and discrimination upon me. However,

EEOC has abandoned me without protection. My financial resources are now gone. In May 1976, foreseeing this, I appealed to HEOC to provide legal assistance and protection from reprisal. EEOC has refused to acknowledge any further

responsibility to me. This is not consistent with its own acknowledged

understanding of the effects of retaliation, and I quote from EEOC's own 7th Annual Report,

"Title VII 704 (a) violations as particularly serious
since they not only work a great hardship upon the
individual involved, but also have a long-term

chilling effect upon the willingness of those individuals
and others actively to oppose Title VII discrimination."

As an extension of this, it is not logical that EEOC asenforcer of Title VII can relieve itself of its responsibility to protect from further reprisal those whose charges of retaliation and discrimination are found by HEOC to be true.

It is my assessment, based on the early misdirection of my file with EEOC, the difficulties in keeping the case on track, and the aborting of decisive and corrective action that EEOC District officials and its Headquarters Commission too have been unwilling and negligent in doing their job.

Moreover, mine is not an isolated case at the University of Pittsburgh. At least 30 individuals are known to me personally and I believe 1300 has knowledge of far more who have filed discrimination complaints with EEOC against the University of Pittsburgh. Furthermore, the implications of my case and these others are widespread within the academic world.

FEOC has in the past and now asks for its funds based on promises, always promises to your Appropriation Committees to be responsive and protective to such individuals and groups of individuals like myself. Be wary! For in the past the promises have most often not been fulfilled.

I have now exhausted my personal resources combatting the unlawful actions of the University of Pittsburgh. Quite apart from the financial drain, the physical and emotional strain caused me to have a heart attack of consequence. However, my personal ruin is not all that is at stake. This ruin of me as a scientist has significant implications in the public interest for I was trained in American Medical schools in Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics with both pre- and post-doctoral U.S. Public Health Fellowships and for the unlawful acts against me I am prevented from performing needed work in Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics which specialty has been an area of science short of qualified personnel.

In the absence of EEOC support and with the exhaustion of my personal resources, what does EEOC and this Committee advise me to do to resolve the unlawful practices against me in my personal interest and to restore my professional contribution for which public funds were expended ?

In summary, it is my position before this group that the very real question before this group is not how much to fund the EEOC but whether to fund it at all. If funded at all this Committee should be very critical and examine each specific item against the widely known track record of EEOC since the funding mechanism is itself the most important instrument to effect needed change. And finally, it is suggested that this Committee consider attaching to the appropriation of EEOC, if approved at all, a stipulation that EEOC assume its responsibility to effectively support and accomplish correction and redress in my case and all others currently at the University of Pittsburgh.

May I express appreciation for your attention and concern.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator HOLLINGS. We will recess until 10 tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., Thursday, April 21, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, April 22.]