Hey, guys. I'm wondering if anyone here has ever filed a complaint with the EEOC and if so, how did it go? Here's the scoop...

Background: I hold a combination position in my school district (it's full-time, though, but with a proportional salary that's not as good as the position I desire). I'm in my early 40s. I've been at my school for 3 years and have tried since starting there to get a different position. I am well-liked and respected by my peers and by teachers in and out of my department.

Two summers ago I applied for a specific position in my school district (one different from the one I currently hold). I was never even interviewed, which, BTW, was a violation of our union contract that stipulates all current employees are guaranteed at least an interview for any position for which they apply.

One week before the start of school the position was STILL open, and here I was reminding the principal that I was interested in it, especially since he was getting desperate to fill it. My Assistant Principal, who was recommending me, wasn't even successful in getting me an interview. Instead, 2 days before school starts some 20-something kid walked in off the street to simply inquire about how to apply met our principal and one hour later, he was offered the job. I was totally ignored.

I filed a grievance with my union because I was never even interviewed for the position. As usual, the union couldn't do a damn thing, telling me, "The position's already been filled."

Now to last summer, in 2007. An unprecedented four positions opened up in my district in my field. Three were in my building, one in the other school. I applied for any of the 4 openings. I was given what I later found out a "courtesy" interview in mid-July 2007. Only the HR Weanie interviewed me. No follow-up or anything after that occurred. I simply found out two weeks later that all 4 positions had been filled. By 4 outsiders. Each of whom was younger than me--and not just by a couple years, either, if you known what I mean.

To say I was pissed off was an understatement. Here I was, a loyal and dedicated and good CURRENT employee who was totally overlooked and dismissed for 4 outsiders. I was even more qualified than these 4 and the other kid the year before. In fact, I've got more endorsements in Social Studies than all other current teachers in the S.S. department to this day (FYI: "endorsements" are areas in which one can teach, like Economics, U.S. History, Sociology, World History, Poli Sci, etc.).

When I saw the superintendent in the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, I point blank asked him, "Dr. NNNNN, how come I was passed up for 4 people outside of the district?" His response: "We were looking for someone younger."

I kid you not. That was his response! Unfortunately, no one was around us to hear this and corroborate this. However, in an interview the Supt. conducted with a student teacher in a different field that previous spring, these are the first 3 questions he asked the interviewee (the HR Asst. was present and verified this):

"Are you a capitalist or a communist?"
"Are you married?"
"What religions denomination do you practice?"

I should mention that this past April, the supt. was fired for reasons not related to this.

As someone who used to be in management in the business world before changing careers into education, I can tell you that the aforementioned questions are blatantly illegal. So are comments like "We were looking for someone younger."

Now before you guys think I'm off base, more info...

In April of this year the first opening in my field was posted. I officially applied for it but was never interviewed. As usual, my union did nothing. The position was filled. By someone in his 20s. In late May I was told by the S.S. dept. chair of my building, someone who is on my side and wanted me to get the position, that another opening was anticipated this summer based on student population growth. He suggested I speak to two specific APs who were doing the summer interviewing. Both APs knew of my desire for this position and promised to interview me. They told me that as of June 2nd, they hadn't begun the interviews.

On the 2nd I sat down with the principal personally and expressed my desire for the potential opening. He was as dismissive and condescending as a guy can get, telling me, "There are openings in schools in your area. I'd recommend applying to those, too." I responded, "What do you think I've been doing? I've applied at every high school in 4 counties!"

He further stated, "You understand our district's money crunch. We just can't hire someone like you. You're too expensive. Younger candidates cost less."

Four days later, on the last day of the school year, the S.S. dept. chair came up to me and told me, "They've already interviewed people for this opening. When I asked about you, they told me they weren't going to interview you because they were looking at 'only younger candidates.'" So the two APs lied to me. They were never going to interview me. Another grievance situation, but as usual, my union tells me that there's nothing they can do because "the position's been filled."

So why is it cheaper to hire only youngsters? A little explanation:

In Illinois, school districts pay their teachers based on a teacher's degree/hours of schooling and years of experience, with the former carrying mroe weight.

The pay scales go something like this:

Bachelor's
Bachelor's + N, where "N" represents the number of graduate hours
Master's
Master's + N, where the "N" represents the number of graduate hours

Those with just a bachelor's degree are those who go to college to get a degree in education then get their teaching certificate when they graduate. They're hired right out of college and are the cheapest hires.

Those with a bachelor's + N are those who don't get into teaching in college but who do so later, like those who change careers like I did. We go to a school that offers a teacher's education program where we attend classes for 2 to 3 years, do our preclinical and student teaching, then get our certificates. We accumulate roughly 36 hours of graduate credit in doing this; hence the "+ N" I alluded to above. This is where I fall. I have a bachelor's + 36. Moreover, I've been sitting on my Master's thesis for 2 years simply because I'd be even more expensive to hire.

Schools like to boast how they want teacher's with Master's degrees or experience, but the dirty little secret is that they don't hire these because they're too costly, so they end up going the just-out-of-college route.

Now, I can understand this to a point, and I can understand that younger=cheaper, but to be told "we were looking for someone younger," or that I wasn't even going to be considered because they were "looking at only younger candidates."

I figured enough is enough, so I called my local EEOC office and now have an appointment scheduled with them in July (earliest I can get in there). I've got a lot of background information to present them, even more than I can share here. I told my union rep that I was considering this route, and she responded, "If you file a complaint with the EEOC, you can expect to never get another job in this district again. They will probably end up firing you in the meantime." She advised me to let the whole thing drop. Now how the hell can I do that when I'm constantly getting screwed because I'm "not young enough" and when my union can't even hold the district to the terms of our contract, which stipulate that I'm guaranteed at least an interview?

So, guys, what are your thoughts? Any suggestions as to what I should do? Anyone have experience with the EEOC?

I have to admit that I'm so sick of the way the district has treated me that I now have this "f**k them!" attitude. I want to go after them in a scorched earth policy. I really don't care whom I run over in my drive to nail them for all this. I've become so bitter and so angry because of them that I often regret leaving business to teach, and I never wanted to have that regret. I never thought I'd feel this way, but I really don't care whom I hurt there as long as I can make them pay for what they've done.

1. You better move fast if you want to file a complaint, because there are probably pretty short deadlines for filing claims against government bodies in your area or with the EEOC, which likely would be a precondition to filing suit.

2. I would have a short meeting with a lawyer (one hour, for example) to get some assistance with (1) sorting out the violations for which you could seek compensation (if any) from the potential violations that you could not (e.g., potential illegal questions asked of people other than you), and (2) giving you a sense whether your potential grievances would have any merit.

3. There wouldn't seem to be much downside in talking to the EEOC ASAP, in fact it may be prerequisite to filing suit (getting a "right to sue" letter from the EEOC).

Good luck!

Tom

I spoke to an EEOC rep. last week and she explained they can only pursue complaints involving instances dating back no later than 300 days. I realize I can't pursue the ageism stuff from two summers ago; however, I intend to include all that and anything else that's beyond the 300 days to establish that there is a pattern to the district's policy and behavior. I also intend to bring that student teacher into things to further illustrate this pattern of behavior.

I know that unlike criminal court, in civil court--if it gets that far--all I really need to do is show that it's more likely than not that the district did what I am alleging they did. Kinda like a 51% likelihood--as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt--that they did something illegal.

I, again, recommend you talk to a lawyer about this, as you can be sure your employer will have one. There are tricky rules of evidence that I sense may prevent you from relying on at least some of what you relate. For example, evidence of prior conduct is sometimes prohibited if offered to prove "character for conduct," and out-of-court statements are, of course, hearsay. So it would be good to talk to a qualified lawyer up front and get an evaluation about the true strengths and weaknesses of your case. Your local bar association could probably refer you to someone, or perhaps your union, and recommendations from friends and associates can be particularly valuable.

Tom's right

check with your union first, but don't be discouraged if they tell you not to pursue it

it's hard to tell if the union leadership has a too close of a relationship with the school administration to be impartial when it comes to their members

I know it's been a while since I last commented on this, so a bit of an update...

On July 17th I went downtown to the EEOC office and filed charges of age discrimination against my (now former) school district. Coincidentally, as I was literally walking out the door to go, I got a phone call from a different district and was offered a job for which I interviewed exactly one week earlier. (It was a job that kind of fell into my lap, and not one I expected.)

Regardless, I still wanted to pursue the claim against my now former employer, and I have to confess, guys, it was because I have such a hatred for those people. I was lied to--to my face--twice during the final week of school in June. By two assistant principals whom I had considered friends, or at least good professional acquaintances. In a nutshell, I was treated like a piece of crap, ignored for any and every position in my field there--8 of them in 24 months. And the union's response? Well, you don't want me to go there! And my buddies wonder why I have no love and no respect whatsoever for phucking unions!!! They exist for (a) lazy workers and ( the

My brother is the only person who suggested I drop the whole complaint because I got a new job somewhere else. However, he seems to be alone in this regard. I decided to keep pursuing it for two reasons: (1) If I don't go after them, they'll keep doing this and treating people with such illegal and disgusting treatment, and (2) I'm being totally vengeful and vindictive and honestly don't give a rat's ass that I am. I can't believe I've become like that, but what has happened to me there the last 3 years has really hardened my heart and soul.

On a related note, the Illinois Dept. of Human Rights automatically receives a copy of every EEOC complaint filed in the state by its residents. They ask complainants if they wish to pursue the matter at the state level in addition to the EEOC/federal level, regardless of what decisions the EEOC eventually makes. I quickly and easily responded that I definitely wish to keep the case alive at the state level.

Now I just have to wait to hear from the EEOC. Apparently what they do is investigate and decide whether to send me what is called a "right to sue." If they send me that, then I have 90 days from the date of that letter to file a lawsuit in federal court. People who have dealt with this before tell me two things:

1. If the plaintiff survives summary judgment, which isn't easy, then he's considered "golden" in court, having a 95% chance of winning his/her case. This almost always prompts the other party to want to settle out of court.

2. These cases that go to court are almost always handled by big firms downtown who take them on contingency. They apparently do so because they take what they believe are likely winners and have a smaller risk of losing.

Has anyone had an experience with EEOC filings? It's been almost 2 months since I filed and was just curious about how long it usually takes to hear back from them.

Crew, what you said about the process is pretty much how it goes. My Mom filed an age discrimination complaint with the EEOC several years ago, but I can't remember how long it took to get a ruling. She was 69 and replaced by a 19 year old after having worked for a very small county government for over 20 years. I'll try to dig up the timeframes. The EEOC ruled in her favor and gave a time period for coming to some kind of agreement with her employer out of court, but she didn't even talk to them because she was heartbroken about the way she was treated.

When you get the "right to sue" letter, you only have 90 days to file a suit if I remember correctly. She had a very good case and got through several motions for summary judgement, however there was a technicality on the number of employees the county employed so it hurt her case. She did settle out of court. Her attorney got 45%, so after court costs, she basically got a little over 50% of the settlement. There are certainly different rules (much more stringent) for winning a case against any government entity, so I don't really know if the school district falls into that category or not. Best of luck and I'll try to get back to you on the timeframes of her case. She settled almost exactly a year after she filed suit. She was put through an 8 hour deposition at one point.

HF, thanks for letting me know that. School districts are considered government entities, but from what I was told, they're just slightly different. They're not bound by the same rules as other government bodies, like city halls, governmental agencies, etc.

Did your mom hire a firm and need to pay for a retainer, or did she get a firm on contingency? To be honest with you, what I'd be looking for is the salary of the position(s) for which I applied each of the last 3 years, plus hopefully a little punitive amount to somewhat cover the attorneys' fees. Don't know if that would work, though.

Oh, and another thing: I realize I don't know your mom's case and you don't know mine, but how often does the EEOC grant these right to sue writs? I would think that by at least alleging that 8 positions opened up in 24 months, and only once was I interviewed, the other 7 not at all, and with all 8 positions being filled by people in their early to mid-20s (with one who was 32), that might be strong enough to get a right to sue.

Crew, I'm not sure of the stats, but it's not hard to prove your age as well as those who were hired instead of you. Those facts don't come down to the "he said she said" category, so I would think age discrimation cases would typically be a little more clear cut.

My Mom's boss tried all kinds of tactics to get her to quit. Changed the locks to the building so that she couldn't come in early or stay late (she liked to work longer hours quite often), changed the computer password so that she was locked out, and finally laying her off "due to budget constraints" until the end of the fiscal year while bringing in the 19 year old. Put her on part time hours when she came back.

I found her an attorney here in Dallas. She lives in a tiny town a little over 200 miles away, so I tried the nearest large town (pop. 100,000) about 80 miles away and where the actual court case would have been held. Nobody in that town did those types of cases, but one of the firms gave me the name of a large firm in Dallas.

I emailed them the facts of the case and they said they didn't do cases like that but gave me the name of an attorney in a small firm (3). He was great and a perfect fit for my Mom. He's convinced she had a great case to this day. Basically, I did all of my search through emails just giving a quick synopsis of the case. He worked on a contingency fee and didn't even make her pay the deposit (which was only $300). I nailed him down on a good estimate of the costs if she lost the case and he said about $4k and no more than $6k, so you have to be prepared for the worst if you go through with the suit. (Remember, my Mom was lucky she got a settlement due to the technicality even though she had a really good case.)

First meeting, the attorney told us that in the "Texas Political Climate", her case might come down to what Judge she drew and then told us of the name of her best chance....she ended up drawing that judge which was great. It's sad that it would come down to that instead of the merits, but those are the facts of our politcal system.

I think the fact that she was suing a county government, the punitive damages were limited...and I think there was a cap you could get that was not applied to private industry employers. Government is held more harmless than others. I'll bet your case will have limits, especially punitive damages.

The last thing for now. The EEOC made it clear to my Mom that their ruling was all they could do for her. No legal help provided and basically on your own after you get the letter. I was shocked by that, but I had no prior experience or knew anyone who had. Seriously, maybe if it came before a jury (would have been our choice) their ruling might make a difference, but I didn't see that it was that helpful. So your case will be as good as it merits.

Thanks for the info. I do understand that the EEOC doesn't do much more than make a determination as to whether I can sue or not. I'm just hoping they do determine that. BTW, I'm still pursuing this on the state level as well. The Illinois Dept. of Human Rights sent me a letter about this, and I responded that I definitely wished to keep it alive at the state level.

I did find out something rather interesting that can only help my case, and it's something I forwarded to the EEOC investigator handling my case. It's also something that would dispel the school district's explanation that they never considered me because I was "too expensive" (as opposed to being too old).

One of the gentlemen hired instead of me had the exact number of graduate hours I did. We were both one class short of getting our Master's. At what is called a "B.A. + 36," we both would have cost the SAME amount of money to hire. However, this man who the week before school was to start in 2006 walked in off the street to simply inquire about the job opening ended up talking to the principal. An hour later the principal offered him the job, despite the fact that for weeks leading up to that date my assistant principal kept telling the principal that (a) the position needed to be filled ASAP, and (b ) that I had applied for it and would be ideal for it. I didn't even receive an interview or acknowledgment of my interest! The biggest difference? While this guy was just as expensive as I was to hire, he was 25 years old.

If that doesn't help solidify my case, I don't know what would.

That does sound pretty damning.

Stay on top of the state level actions because we found out the statute of limitations was shorter in Texas than at the federal level. By the time she got around to the suit etc, the clock only covered the time she worked part time (at low wages), so it wasn't worth pursuing as she did finally give up and quit because the atmosphere was unbearable. She was completely beat down, devasted and depressed, so it was a shame she could not have gone for the punitive jugular.

Oh, he based putting her on part time hours because he claims she asked for it. She didn't ask for it, she expressed several years ago that she would like to get to the point (financially) SOMEDAY where she could go part time...he knew it was more of a dream/wish than her actual situation. She made it clear she couldn't AFFORD to go part time and needed to work more years to be able to draw a larger social security check. Luckily, there were witnesses that heard her tell him this MANY times.

Hang in there! Do you have the name of the "caseworker" on your EEOC filing? I know my Mom called and gave him information after she filed that he was interested in getting. Things she had missed or new information that came to light afterwards.

Yeah, I got a letter from him about a month after I filed explaining that he was handling 2 dozen cases, that I wasn't to contact him--he'd contact me--unless I had something totally brand new to give him, which I did. His letter had his contact info, including his Email address. I put together a letter explaining this new hire being young but the same cost to hire as me. I emphasized that the district could not get away with claiming cost was the reason for not hiring me when others costing the same amount were hired, but they were 15-20 years younger.

I just ran across the paperwork for my Mom's case....it took 5 months to get the ruling.

Good luck!

I filed a sexual harassment case against a previous employer and was very pleased with the efficient fair and sympathetic treatment I received here in Philadelphia, even though I lost the case. No one who witnessed the behavior I sited would testify, and the defendent was clever enough to reserve the worst of his abuses to the privacy of his office or the small lab where we worked.

Still the adjudicator took me aside afterward and said that she felt the fact I had brought the case might discourage any such future discrimination by the guy, which I think has probably been true though I have wanted nothing to do with the case or the company since.

I did however get a call later from another male employee of the same firm who was filing a legal suit because of a lack of consideration for a promotion that he felt was based on his sexual orientation. He was also gay. He was very interested in why I had filed my case against a different individual in the same company. I suspect that he was able to prepare a better case because he kept better records of documentable evidence whereas I never expected to need to file such a complaint considering my previous good work reviews.

I should mention that I had consulted a lawyer and was told that I had insufficient hard evidence to win a court case. But he recommended I pursue the EOCC route. I'm glad I did even if it means that I won't likely work in that specific field again, by choice. I have had some inquiries from the companies competition.

Thanks, HF. I guess that means I've still got 3 months at least to wait. Hmm...maybe that means I can make it a Merry Christmas to my old district: sue 'em for the holidays.




I'm confused. Doesn't the EEOC recommend whether or not to pursue a court case? If your lawyer said you didn't have hard evidence to win a court case, what was so different about going the EEOC route?

From the EEOC website:Anyone can file a charge, with or without a lawyer. Though I am sure a good lawyer's involvement, earlier, would insure a better case.

Had I known more earlier I would have done things a lot differently, especially gathering hard evidence before I was hastily, and perhaps pre-emptively dismissed.

The lawyer, as I assume any good lawyer will, played an aggresive Devil's Advocate. One can forget things that might have been relevant under that kind of cross-examination. But in retrospect I realize it is in their financial advantage to have the most sympathetic and obvious case to take before a jury.

That can make it difficult for someone who has never been through that situation before - filing a suit that is, not suffering what I considered blatant discrimination.

I do believe that it is worthwhile to pursue these things when you think you have a case, for a written record.