The Federal Government is Investigating Intel Corp. for Age Discrimination Violations

Recently published articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Oregonian web site, report that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is conducting an expanded class-level investigation regarding age discrimination complaints that have been filed with the EEOC against Intel Corp.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) was the first news organization to report about the ongoing investigation in an article written by Georgia Wells, entitled: Intel Faces Age-Discrimination Claims. The WSJ article mentions that multiple complaints have been filed with the EEOC in conjunction with several rounds of massive employee layoffs over the last three years. The fact that the EEOC would continue an investigation almost three years after a reported violation indicates that the reported allegations are substantial, in spite of Intel Corp. denial of the charges.

The Oregonian news organization expands the coverage on the subject matter in an article written by Mike Rogoway entitled: Intel under investigation for alleged age discrimination. Rogoway, who covered the Intel Corp. massive employee layoffs back in 2015 and 2016 also provided statistical charts showing a clear correlation between an employee age and their odds of being selected for layoff. In this recent article, Rogoway provides a copy of a previously published chart from 2016, demonstrating the very clear age discrimination factor in the 2016 layoffs. Similar charts are available for the 2015 layoffs.

Intel Corp. 2015 Layoffs (click on image to enlarge)

Intel 2016 Layoffs (click on image to enlarge)

Publicly available information also demonstrates that while Intel Corp. was laying off thousands of its current employees, the company was actually acquiring new employees by the thousands. Many of these employees came in via Intel corp. sponsorship of H1B visas, H4 spousal work visas, "Green Card" sponsorship and F1 to OPT work permits. All of these additions to the workforce involve importation of foreign workers who are at the mercy of Intel Corp. for continued stay and employment in the U.S. In other words, Intel Corp. was actively replacing older workers with imported slave labor.

Intel Corp. Number of employees from Annual Report

(click on image to enlarge detail)

As can be seen from the above information, taken from the Intel Corp. 2016 Annual Report, The number of employees reported at the end of 2015 was 107,300, or about 600 more employees then reported in the previous year. However, since about 1200 employees were laid off mid-year, in July 2015, the the end-of-year number shown in the Annual Report actually represents a gain of 1800 employees relative to the previous year. This gain of 1800 new employees acquired before 2015 year end, contradicts Intel CEO's announcement to employees that the July 2015 were necessary to save on expenses "due to forecast of flat revenue"! Throwing experienced (and older) employees off the bus in order to replace them with cheaper newcomers, is the more likely explanation.

Similarly, in 2016, Intel Corp. laid off about 12,000 employees, yet the difference between the numbers reported for the end of 2016 are 106,00, thereby reflecting an effective gain of 10,700 employees  (106,000 - (107,300 - 12,000)) = 10,700.

Where did Intel Corp. acquire the replacement employees? According to a recently published Pew Research Center report: "By the end of the 2004-2016 period,  there were a total of 1,474,000 OPT approvals and 1,473,000 initial H-1B visa approvals".

Layoffs of older U.S. citizen employees not only manifests employment costs savings due their higher salaries, but also cuts on the cost of medical insurance expenses for a self insured company like Intel Corp. It is taken for granted that medical insurance costs tend to rise with the age of older employees and their dependents. If induction into employment of almost 3 million imported slave laborers in the high tech sector is not a significant economic factor in this lucrative sector of the U.S. labor market, what is? 

Intel Corp. attitude towards lowering the cost of labor led company management to commit law violations by conspiring, along with Apple, Adobe and Google to halt competition for employee recruitment in the Bay area and by doing so curbing potential employee pay escalation. The company was engaged in this practice for over a decade since 2001. Court records show that Intel Corp. was forced to settle its ill behavior with its employees, following a court ruling in 2013 (see United States District Court of Southern California - San Jose, Case No. 11-CV-02509-LHK).

Taking the significant risk of engaging in an anti-competitive illegal activity is a clear indication of the high priority that  company executives and the board of directors gave to curbing payroll costs. Clearly, Intel Corp. never refrained from its quest to curb employee compensation and was looking for every avenue to achieve its goals. The evidence points to systemic changes in the company's HR practices, enacted by company executives to get rid of older workers and replace them with cheaper workers. The 2015 layoffs, in which about 1200 employees lost their jobs, seem to be a small scale "experiment" that was meant to serve as a learning tool for company executives before executing the "magnum opus", the massive layoffs of 2016.

While Intel Corp. is not the only company to utilize the F1 to OPT loophole to circumvent the H1B visa quotas, utilization of such loophole is certainly one of the tools that the company utilizes to recruit cheap, captive workers. Public records show that Intel Corp. was the number one company to sponsor F1 to OPT foreign worker visas, with twice as many records registered as Microsoft corp. (see chart below).

Click on image to enlarge detail

Both the WSJ and the Oregonian articles provide new exposure to issues that we have been covering in this web site for the last two years. We encourage our readers to refer to several of our previously published articles, including:

• Useful diagrams for explaining Intel Corp selection of employees for termination in 2015 and 2016
• The Cheap Labor Loophole - OPT is the Name of the Game
• Open Letter to Rep. Susan Bonamici
• Investigation Reveals Silicon Valley’s Abuse of Immigrant Tech Workers
• Intel Corp. Sponsored 10,168 H1B Visas In 2017
• Coal Miners, H1B Visa, George Orwell and Alternative Facts
• 40 Year-old Retirees - Age Discrimination in the News

Further recent information regarding the ill practices that high tech employers are using to substitute older workers with cheaper workforce are covered by Peter Gosselin in these ProPublica articles:

•  CUTTING ‘OLD HEADS’ AT IBM
• Federal Watchdog Launches Investigation of Age Bias at IBM

All the best.

--Dr.Flywheel

Open Letter to Rep. Susan Bonamici

Honorable Congresswoman Bonamici,

With an estimated 70-80 million “baby boomers” entering retirement over the next 15 years, the U.S. economy will be forced to shift the tax paying burden and dig into the pockets of people who still work, to support the growing elderly population.

The subject that I am raising here is the common practice of age discrimination in employment. There is mounting evidence that employers are laying off employees who are older, under a variety of covers, while circumventing the Civil Rights laws of this country. Note that the definition of older in this case, is workers, who are 40 year old and older. This definition comes from our legal system, as represented by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967.

This issue of marking employees for potential layoff, once they reach the age of 40, is very serious. As a principal member of PDX-TIE.ORG, an organization that was originally created for the purpose of mutually supporting employees who were laid off from Intel Corp. since 2015. I know from my own personal experience, as well as from the testimonies of many of our members, that Intel Corp. discriminated against hundreds or perhaps thousands of older employees by either laying them off, or forcing them to retire. In fact I filed an official complaint with both the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) and the Federal agency in charge of enforcing fair employment practices, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). My charges are currently being investigated.

A recent article published in Pro Publica, a highly esteemed investigative journalism web site exposed many of the practices that IBM Corp. used to get rid of its older employees and either replace them with less costly younger workers, or shift their jobs overseas. The relevant Pro Publica article is entitled CUTTING ‘OLD HEADS’ AT IBM and the article content can be found at: https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-american-workers/

Many members of our mutual support organization, PDX-TIE.ORG, once they read the Pro Publica article, immediately found corollaries and parallels between the way in which they were treated by Intel Corp. and the various nefarious methods that Intel Corp. dealt with older employees.

Since I have dedicated the last 2-1/2 years of my life to researching the growing phenomenon of age discrimination in employment, I found that affected employees, have very little support to plead their case and seek justice, because the current system is rigged up in favor of employers. Among other things, employment attorneys refuse to take representation of age discrimination cases under a contingency fee arrangement. Consequently, there are very few such cases, brought into court. After all, older employees who lost their main source of income, following their employment termination, are in a very bad position to spend large amounts of money on attorney’s fees. My own personal experience and the testimony of many of my colleagues, support this fact.

There are many more issues regarding age discrimination in employment that I would be happy to share with you and your staff.

Note that while discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin is covered Under Title VII Protected Classes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) Vol 42(2000e), age discrimination in the work place is specifically covered under the separate scope of the ADEA.

Federal (and many state laws) provide protection (at least on the books) to certain recognized Protected Classes, defined by the law as: Race, Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, Gender (sex), and Age.Yet, we find very few cases of age discrimination brought into justice due to weaknesses in application of the law, as compared with other types of discrimination in employment.

Lately, issue of equal pay and sexual harassment came to light in the news and began to wake up the public to the fact that these practices are in fact much wider spread than the public were led to believe. I contend that age discrimination in employment is much wider than many people recognize. I noticed that non of your news letters, sent to your constituency ever mentioned age discrimination in employment as an action item to be corrected via both public education and legislative action. I hope that your office will attend to this issue at the high priority that it deserves.

Let us not forget that aging is unavoidable, whether a person is black or white, male or female, gay or straight. Regardless of gender based pay equality issues, once a person find themselves out of a job, pay equality becomes moot.

Thank you for listening.

--Ron Tsur

Intel Corp. Sponsored 10,168 H1B Visas In 2017

According to H1Bpay.com report, Intel Corp. sponsored 10,168 H1B visa applicants in 2017.

You can see the breakdown of the information, by State and location, at this link:

http://h1bpay.com/companies/Intel/cities

If you are interetsted in the subject, IEEE Spectrum magazine published the following article on the H1B visa program issue: Commentary: The H-1B Visa Problem as IEEE-USA Sees It.

--Dr. Flywheel

Your Personal Genetic Data Will Soon Be Available To Your Employer

If you believe that GINA (the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law) protects your privacy and prevents your personal genetic information from being exposed to your employer's health maintenance plan, then this may no longer be the case.

H.R. 1313 was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed.

Under provisions of H.R. 1313, your employer will be entitled to demand that you undergo genetic testing and the data collected will be made available to the employer.

Read the text of H.R. 1313 here:
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih.pdf

Considering that all data stored in databases could be easily breached, as evidenced from the many reports in the press, it is clear that H.R. 1313 represents a major regression in the struggle for maintaining privacy of personal information. As we have witnessed recently, even the NSA and CIA data has been compromised. In the near future, you might as well attach your DNA test report to your LinkedIn profile.

Fight to protect your rights before loosing them, altogether! Contact your U.S. Congress representative and tell them how you feel about H.R. 1313.

-- Dr. Flywheel

2016 H1B Visa Petitions For Each State - Ranked by Number of Petitions

According to the Department of Home Security (DHS), H1B visas are granted to the following categories of applicants:

1. Specialty Occupations
2. DOD Researcher and Development Project Worker
3. Fashion Model

I must admit that I was not aware of the current "carnage" and screaming shortages in the fashion model market. Maybe your guess would be better than mine regarding the identity and the interests of the lobby groups who "helped" our government define the above categories; however, the current non-resident worker employment policy of the U.S. are practiced, based upon the H1B categories mentioned above.
(see: https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-dod-cooperative-research-and-development-project-workers-and-fashion-models).

The table below lists the number of H1B visa petitions submitted by US employers in fiscal year 2016, organized by State rank. The Number of LCA column reflects the number of Labor Condition Application(LCA) filed for H1B Visas. . This number includes new, renewed and transferred LCAs. 

Note that in some cases the visa sponsors (employers) specify a salary range, instead of a single numerical salary value. In such case the Average Salary column reflects the average proffered salary on the LCA application or the attached Form 9035. 

Click on the embedded links to get further breakdown of the information (Courtesy of:  http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2017-H1B-Visa-Category.aspx?T=WS)

Rank	Work State	Number of LCA *	Average Salary
1	California	119,744	$100,542
2	Texas	68,460	$79,940
3	New York	58,660	$92,567
4	New Jersey	48,365	$78,908
5	Illinois	35,177	$81,842
6	Massachusetts	24,887	$87,638
7	Georgia	24,859	$79,504
8	Pennsylvania	23,376	$84,692
9	Washington	23,146	$102,779
10	Michigan	20,966	$77,545
11	Florida	20,848	$78,039
12	Virginia	18,902	$81,852
13	North Carolina	18,845	$82,486
14	Ohio	16,342	$80,292
15	Maryland	10,739	$81,851
16	Connecticut	10,034	$86,838
17	Minnesota	9,938	$83,414
18	Arizona	9,732	$83,345
19	Missouri	7,971	$78,011
20	Wisconsin	7,046	$82,666
21	Colorado	6,501	$85,639
22	Indiana	6,399	$81,569
23	Tennessee	5,652	$79,330
24	Oregon	4,718	$86,092
25	District of Columbia	4,134	$86,293
26	Delaware	3,521	$84,892
27	Arkansas	3,406	$78,780
28	South Carolina	2,952	$78,275
29	Iowa	2,940	$83,365
30	Utah	2,887	$79,034
31	Kansas	2,768	$84,216
32	Kentucky	2,624	$83,644
33	Rhode Island	2,457	$86,683
34	Louisiana	2,191	$88,751
35	Alabama	2,053	$80,989
36	Oklahoma	2,015	$74,551
37	Nebraska	2,014	$83,223
38	New Hampshire	1,906	$84,485
39	Nevada	1,396	$86,596
40	New Mexico	1,039	$95,587
41	Idaho	887	$79,349
42	Mississippi	839	$97,002
43	Maine	687	$104,311
44	West Virginia	617	$114,471
45	Hawaii	557	$77,837
46	North Dakota	544	$103,572
47	Vermont	366	$81,878
48	South Dakota	347	$84,426
49	Alaska	201	$84,652
50	Montana	191	$88,029
51	Wyoming	137	$102,661

Your comments are welcome.

--Dr. Flywheel

Court Will Decide If Employer Can Avoid Hiring Older Workers To Maintain Image

The EEOC filed its law suit against the Texas Road House for practicing age discrimination against older workers. The law suit is referenced as: Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-11732-DJC, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Details of the case are summarized in this press release: Texas Roadhouse Refused to Hire Older Workers Nationwide, EEOC Alleges in Lawsuit

The law suit claims: The EEOC alleged that Texas Roadhouse has hired significantly few “front of the house” employees 40 or older in age. In addition, Texas Roadhouse allegedly instructed its managers to hire younger job applicants. For example, Texas Roadhouse emphasized youth when training managers about hiring employees for its restaurants. All of the images of employees in its training and employment manuals are of young people.

Although the law suit is currently taking active action in court, you may be interested in the EEOC request:

Individuals who believe they may have been denied a position at Texas Roadhouse because of their age or who have any information that would be helpful to the EEOC’s suit against Texas Roadhouse should contact the EEOC toll free at (855) 556-1129 or by e-mail at texasroadhouse.lawsuit@eeoc.gov.

Peter Gosselin of Pro Publica, the investigative journalism and public interest news organization published a recent article, covering the court proceeding. Click on this link to access Peter's article:

Federal Court May Decide If Employers Can Reject Older Job Seekers to Protect ‘Image’

Note: Peter Gosselin continues to investigate age discrimination in employment cases and is particularly interested in talking to people who have experienced such illegal treatment by their employer.

Peter's contact information is:   Peter.Gosselin@propublica.org
   @PeterGosselin

These days that our government is showing a great tendency to pursue the interests of Big Business, while the 70-80 million population of the Baby Boomer generation is heading into uncertain retirement, it is crucial to insure that corrective actions will take place. Age discrimination has been the "big elephant in room" for a long time. Big Business took advantage of weaknesses in the way Congress phrased civil rights protection against age discrimination and deterred affected employees from taking legal action against their employers. The EEOC final rule of 2012 removed some of the ambiguities of the ADEA law; yet, very few legal actions were followed by the EEOC.  If the new administration proves to act against the interest of the voting population by blocking protection of older workers' civil rights, then perhaps it would be time to mobilize older workers to march into the streets. Older workers tend to be more active in casting votes than the general population and I fully expect that politicians who ignore their plight will be punished for their lack of corrective action. On the other hand, perhaps our new President, will see the light of day and understand that pursuing protection of civil right for millions of Americans is what can make America Great Again. Perhaps members of the U.S. Congress will understand that the elections of 2018 are around the corner.

--Dr. Flywheel

Investigation Reveals Silicon Valley’s Abuse of Immigrant Tech Workers

Though this story of labor abuse was revealed in the press, around two years ago, it is not very clear if changes have been implemented to correct corporate behavior when it comes to exploitation of the workforce. Without a doubt, the availability of cheap and easily exploitable alternative workforce, permitted  high tech companies to play loose with their domestic workforce. With such exploitation opportunities at their disposal, companies chose to eliminate local workers who's salary levels were maintained at a relatively high level due to high demand and competition among employers. This is not exactly the level playing field that made the American economy so great in the past. If slavery is good for capitalism then perhaps we should all vote to be ruled by the "0.1%" oligarch class.

Intel Corp. laid off more than 1500 employees in 2015, and shed about 6,800 during 2016, with an intention to lay off 12,000 employees by mid 2017. While the layoffs were taking place, Intel Corp. continued to hire employees at a lower compensation level. The company also employed the services of "job shops" of the kind mentioned in the articles listed in the reference section below. This is in addition to thousands of H1B visa applications that the company continued to apply for.

I have a first person experience being involved in an Intel project that employed the services of Wipro Corp. to exploit a group of Indian software developers. I saw in my own eyes how they were forced to work 12-hour days, six days a week and report tremendous number of overtime hours to retain the bonus of their supervisor, who was a ruthless slave trader. Six of these individuals shared a small apartment during their stay and they earned a meager income compared to their American coworkers salaries. Most of these workers were severely demoralized and their productivity suffered as a result of the conditions under which they operated. Consequently, the project that they worked on was late by 18 months and was eventually cancelled. This resulted in multi-million dollar loss for Intel Corp. besides the opportunity loss incurred due missing the window of market opportunity.

If you are concerned about this phenomenon of highly skilled American Workers being displaced from good paying jobs through exploitation of imported foreign workers, then convey your concerns to your elected representatives in Congress.

Top executives of high tech corporations are not on your side. They belong to the 1-percent class and for the last 30 years they voted with their feet to insulate their economic reality from you and me.

References:

• Wired Magazine:
   https://www.wired.com/2014/11/investigation-reveals-silicon-valleys-abuse-immigrant-tech-workers/
• The Guardian:
   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/28/-sp-jobs-brokers-entrap-indian-tech-workers
• Reveal News:
  https://www.revealnews.org/article-legacy/graphic-novel-techsploitation/

NBC Bay Area:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Body-Shop-Secret-280567322.html

--Dr. Flywheel

Open Letter to Rep. Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. Bonamici,

I voted for you in Tuesday's elections and so did many of my colleagues, believing that you will represent our common interests in front of the Federal Government.  We fully expect Rep. Bonamici to scrutinize the operations of the executive branch, specifically the EEOC protecting us from age discrimination in the work place.  I believe that the results of the last elections prove beyond doubt that the status quo cannot be maintained. Action and transparency are needed to keep this country running in the right direction.

Let it be clear that we are an organized group of disenfranchised, highly educated and highly skilled people who happen to be mostly over the age of 40. Most of us have been unemployed between 5 to 17 months due to ineptness of Intel Corp. management and the impotent handling of our case by Oregon BOLI and the EEOC. We are representative of the group of voters that both the DNC and the RNC will be facing over the next two years, leading to the next election cycle. Whoever fills the ranks in the U.S. Congress cannot ignore the fact that age discrimination in the work place is not confined to isolated incidents or to any particular socio-economic group of people. In terms of gender, there is plenty of proof that women suffer from age discrimination even more than man.

From our perspective, lack of action in enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws will lead to a major disaster in the economy while 70-80 million baby boomers are transitioning into retirement over the next 15 years. Corporate America is facing no law-enforcement challenges to keep their actions in check when it comes to age discrimination. Because executive management salaries are so disproportionately higher than regular worker's compensation levels and they mostly focus on short-term profitability, older workers jobs are being selectively terminated. These actions are typically disguised as "performance" related, because under existing law enforcement practices, a corporate employer has a very slim chance of being brought to justice by either State or Federal Government agencies. Older workers are essentially sacrificed to show good numbers on quarterly balance sheets, mostly because their salaries are higher. To politicians in this country this issue may seems insignificant at this time; however, if left unchecked, it will not be very long before the streets of our nation will be filled with angry men and and women who were forced to sell their homes in order to make ends meet.

Ms. Bonamici, I call upon you to bring this issue into the U.S. Congress for proper review and corrective legislation; however, even before legislating, please follow up on our request to review the actions and defaults of the EEOC that are pertinent to our filed case.

For a quick background I advise clicking on the link below and reading the following article on this web site:
    http://www.pdx-tie.org/2016/08/useful-diagrams-for-explaining-intel.html

Thank you for representing us.

--Dr. Flywheel

40 Year-old Retirees - Age Discrimination in the News

Can you imagine a world in which people live to be 90 years old, yet are forced to retire at age 40? Can you imagine a viable economy being able to function in this situation? If the current employment trends continue, this is going to become our reality in just a few years from now.

Not convinced that this is the direction in which we are heading? Read the collection of articles referenced through the links below and form an educated opinion of your own.

USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/22/90-age-discrimination-suits-reflect-growing-issue-tech/93110594/

Huffington Post:
Huffington Post Articles Collection

CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/02/age-discrimination-is-starting-to-hit-workers-in-their-40s-commentary.html

USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/24/hp-hpe-hpq-age-discrimination-lawsuit/89270876/

Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-26/here-s-proof-that-age-discrimination-is-widespread-in-the-job-market

PBS Newshour:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/age-discrimination-in-the-workplace-starts-as-early-as-35/

Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2016/03/older-women-are-being-forced-out-of-the-workforce

Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-employment-discrimination-age-idUSKCN0SD1Z720151019

The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/baby-boomers-are-taking-on-ageism--and-losing/2016/08/03/43d6664c-120c-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html

L.A. Times:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe0426-neumark-age-women-discrimination-date-20160427-story.html

The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/02/ageing-retirement-workforce-discrimination

OregonLive:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/portland_jury_awards_12_millio.html

Are you immune to age discrimination? Is this other people's problem? Are you waiting for politicians to solve this problem before you become a victim of age discrimination? Is Global Warming going to solve this problem?

Your ideas and your actions (or lack thereof) count. Add your comments below.

--Dr. Flywheel

EEOC Investigation Can Toll Statute of Limitations in Employment Discrimination Cases

On July 27, 2016, a court decision known as Reginald Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (“Mitchell”) (Superior Court Case No. BC550911),  set a precedence in favor of tolling employment discrimination charges against an employer, while the EEOC investigation was taking place. The term "tolling" refers to stopping the clock on the statute of limitation, due to a pending significant process or event. In this case the pending event was conclusion of the EEOC investigation. In the Mitchell case, the Court held that Plaintiff’s Complaint was timely even though it was filed nearly three years after the DFEH issued its “right to sue” letter.

The full article can be viewed in the frame below.

--Dr. Flywheel

Notice to Ex-Intel Employees At International Sites:U.S. Age Discrimination Laws Protect Your Rights

The court decision cited below confirms that Intel Corp. employees who work for the company international subsidiaries, are protected by the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

--Dr. Flywheel

Morelli v. Cedel (2nd Cir. 1998) 141 F3d 39, 45

The ADEA applies even if some of the minimum 20 employees are overseas and working for a US Corporation. In a foreign company with foreign operation, if there is an American employer behind the scenes, the ADEA applies to US Citizens outside the US. Foreign companies and their subsidiaries operating in the US are subject to the ADEA.MORELLI v. CEDEL, 141 F.3d 39 (2nd Cir. 1998) IDA MORELLI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. CEDEL, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. No. 546, 97-7277. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued October 21, 1997. Decided March 26, 1998. Page 40 Steven G. Eckhaus, Eckhaus & Olson, New York City, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Gary D. Friedman, Mayer, Brown & Platt, New York City, for Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mukasey, J. Page 41 Before NEWMAN, CALABRESI an CUDAHY,[fn*] Circuit Judges. [fn*] The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge: [1] This appeal requires us to decide whether the domestic employees of certain foreign corporations are protected under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (the ADEA), and, if so, whether a foreign corporation's foreign employees are counted for the purpose of determining whether the corporation has enough employees to be subject to the ADEA. We answer both questions in the affirmative. Background [2] After the defendant fired the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued the defendant. The plaintiffs amended complaint asserted that the defendant violated the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, and New York State's Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-301. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the defendant was not subject to the ADEA, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter), and that the ERISA count did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court also dismissed the state law claim. The plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her federal claims. [3] As alleged in the complaint, the facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. The plaintiff, Ida Morelli, was born on April 11, 1939. The defendant is a Luxembourg bank. On or about June 29, 1984, the defendant hired the plaintiff to work in its New York office. On or about February 26, 1993, the plaintiff became an assistant to Dennis Sabourin, a manager in the defendant's New York office. Mr. Sabourin summoned the then 54-year-old plaintiff to his office on January 18, 1994, handed her a separation agreement, and insisted that she sign it. [4] Under the terms of the separation agreement, a copy of which was attached to the complaint, the plaintiff would resign, effective April 30, 1994. She would continue to receive her salary and benefits until the effective date of her resignation, but she would be relieved of her duties as an employee, effective immediately. Both the defendant and the employee would renounce all claims arising out of "their past working relationship." Mr. Sabourin told the plaintiff that she would receive the three months' severance pay, medical coverage for three months, and her pension only on the condition that she sign the agreement on the spot. The plaintiff had never seen the separation agreement before and had no warning that she was going to be asked to resign. But in the face of Mr. Sabourin's ultimatum, she did sign the agreement immediately and returned it to him. The defendant, however, never provided her with a pension distribution. Discussion 1. Age Discrimination (a) Does the ADEA cover a U.S.-based branch of a foreign employer? [5] The ADEA was enacted in 1967 to prevent discrimination by employers on the basis of age. See Pub.L. No. 90-202, § 2, 81 Stat. 602 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 621(b)); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 577, 98 S.Ct. 866, 868, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978). In order to determine whether the defendant is subject to the ADEA, we must first determine whether the ADEA generally protects the employees of a branch of a foreign employer located in the United States. [6] It is undisputed that Cedel is a foreign employer with fewer than 20 employees in its sole U.S. branch. There being no contested facts on the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), we review the district court's dismissal de novo. See Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. Dinkins, 5 F.3d 591, 594 (2d Cir. 1993). [7] Section 4(h)(2) of the ADEA provides that "[t]he prohibitions of [the ADEA] shall not apply where the employer is a foreign person not controlled by an American employer." Page 42 29 U.S.C. § 623(h)(2). At a minimum, this provision means that the ADEA does not apply to the foreign operations of foreign employers - unless there is an American employer behind the scenes. See Denty v. SmithKline Beecham, Corp., 109 F.3d 147, 150-51 (3d Cir. 1997). An absolutely literal reading of § 4(h)(2) might suggest that the ADEA also does not apply to the domestic operations of foreign employers. But the plain language of § 4(h)(2) is not necessarily decisive if it is inconsistent with Congress' clearly expressed legislative purpose. See Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313-14 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F.3d 76, 87 (2d Cir. 1997); Haberman v. Finch, 418 F.2d 664, 666 (2d Cir. 1969). [8] Section 4(h)(2) was not part of the original ADEA. It was added in 1984. See Pub.L. No. 98-459, § 802(b)(2), 98 Stat. 1792 (1984); Pub.L. No. 99-272, § 9201(b)(3), 100 Stat. 171 (1986) (clerical correction). The context in which it was added reveals that Congress' purpose was not to exempt the domestic workplaces of foreign employers from the ADEA's prohibition of age discrimination. Instead, the purpose of adding this exclusion was to limit the reach of an extraterritorial amendment adopted as part of the same legislation. [9] In 1984, before § 4(h)(2) was added, several courts of appeals had concluded that the ADEA did not apply to "Americans employed outside the United States by American employers." Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 610 (3d Cir. 1984); see also, eg., Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); Zahourek v. Arthur Young & Co., 750 F.2d 827, 828-29 (10th Cir. 1984). These decisions were based in part on language in § 7 of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626, which prescribes enforcement procedures by reference to certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, the national wage and hour law. Those FLSA provisions specify that the FLSA does not apply "with respect to any employee whose services during the workweek are performed in a workplace within a foreign country." 29 U.S.C. § 213(f); see 29 U.S.C. § 216(d)(1); Cleary, 728 F.2d at 608-09. The courts of appeals held that the ADEA incorporated the FLSA's prohibition on extraterritorial application. See, e.g., Cleary, 728 F.2d at 609. Within a few months of the 1984 court decisions, Congress amended the ADEA in away that superseded the holding of these cases by "provid[ing] for limited extraterritorial application" of the ADEA. Denty, 109 F.3d at 149-50. [10] The 1984 amendments amplified the definition of "employee" in § 11(f) of the ADEA, which had previously embraced any "individual employed by employer," except for certain elected public officials and political appointees. See Pub.L. No. 90-202, § 11(f) (1967); Pub.L. No. 93-259, § 28(a)(4) (1974). One of the 1984 amendments specified that "[t]he term `employee' includes any individual who is a citizen of the United States employed by an employer in a workplace in a foreign country." Pub.L. No. 98-459, § 802(a) (1984). [11] Companion amendments dealt with the cases of foreign persons not controlled by an American employer - now § 4(h)(2) of the ADEA - and foreign corporations controlled by American employers - now § 4(h)(1): If an employer controls a corporation whose place of incorporation is in a foreign country, any practice by such corporation prohibited under this section shall be presumed to be such practice by such employer. [12] Id. § 803(b)(2); Pub.L, No. 99-272, § 9201(b)(3) (1986), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 623(h)(1). The amendments also included a "foreign law exception" - now ADEA § 4(f)(1) - insulating employers from liability for "practices involv[ing] an employee in a workplace in a foreign country" where compliance with the ADEA "would cause [the] employer, or a corporation controlled by such employer, to violate the laws of the country in which such workplace is located." Pub.L. No. 98-459, § 803(b)(1) (1984), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1). [13] The 1984 revision to the definition of "employee" in § 11(f) was intended "to assure that the provisions of the ADEA would be applicable to any citizen of the United States who is employed by an American employer in a workplace outside the United States." S.Rep. 98-467, at 27 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2974, 3000 (S.Rep.); see EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 258-59, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 1235-36, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991). The other 1984 amendments, to § 4 of ADEA, conform the ADEA's reach to "the well-established principle of sovereignty, that no nation has the right to impose its labor standards on another country." S.Rep. at 27. Thus § 4(h)(2) of the ADEA merely limits the scope of the amended definition of employee, so that an employee at a workplace in a foreign country is not protected under the ADEA if the employer is a foreign person not controlled by an American employer. See id. at 27-28 ("[T]he amendment. . . . does not apply to foreign companies which are not controlled by U.S. firms.") (emphasis added). There is no evidence in the legislative history that these amendments were intended to restrict the application of the ADEA with respect to the domestic operations of foreign employers. [14] Further, the plain language of the corresponding foreign-employer exclusions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, indicates that a foreign employer's domestic operations are not excluded from the reach of those statutes. The Title VII and ADA exclusions are expressly limited to the "foreign operations of an employer that is a foreign person not controlled by an American employer," 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-1(c)(2), 12112(c)(2)(B) (emphasis added), so these employment discrimination statutes would apply to a foreign company's domestic operations. It is not apparent why the domestic operations of foreign companies should be subject to Title VII and the ADA, but not to the ADEA. The legislative history of the comparable foreign-employer exemptions of those laws - both added as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, see Pub.L. No. 102-166, § 109(b)(1), (2), 105 Stat. 1077 - contains no indication that Congress intended any such difference in scope between the ADEA and Title VII or the ADA. See, e.g., 137 Cong.Rec. 28,638 (1991) (statement of Sen. Kennedy). [15] If § 4(h)(2) does not exempt the domestic operations of foreign companies from the ADEA, there is no other basis for such an exemption. Because "[t]he Age Discrimination Act is remedial and humanitarian legislation," it should be "construed liberally to achieve its purpose of protecting older employees from discrimination." Moses v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 525 F.2d 92, 93 (8th Cir. 1975). The exemption of the domestic operations of foreign employers from the ADEA would only undermine the purpose of the ADEA to "promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age." 29 U.S.C. § 621(b). International comity does not require such an exemption; the 1984 amendments anticipate that American corporations operating abroad will be subject to foreign labor laws, and Congress presumably contemplated that the operations of foreign corporations here will be subject to U.S. labor laws. [16] We have previously concluded that even when a foreign employer operating in the United States can invoke a Friendship, Commerce and Navigation treaty to justify employing its own nationals, this "does not give [the employer] license to violate American laws prohibiting discrimination in employment." Avigliano v. Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc., 638 F.2d 552, 558 (2d Cir. 1981), vacated on other grounds, 457 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 2374, 72 L.Ed.2d 765 (1982); see also MacNamara v. Korean Air Lines, 863 F.2d 1135, 1141 (3d Cir. 1988) ("[A] foreign business may not deliberately undertake to reduce the age of its workforce by replacing older Americans with younger foreign nationals."). Although the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in that case on the grounds that the defendant could not invoke the treaty, see Sumitomo, 457 U.S. at 189-90 & n. 19, 102 S.Ct. at 2382 & n. 19, the Court observed that "the highest level of protection afforded by commercial treaties" to foreign corporations operating in the United States is generally no more than "equal treatment with domestic corporations." Id. at 188 n. 18, 102 S.Ct. at 2381 n. 18. Here equal treatment would require that antidiscrimination rules apply to foreign enterprises' U.S. branches, since "defending personnel decisions is a fact of business life in contemporary America and is a burden that the domestic competitors of foreign enterprise have been required to shoulder," MacNamara, 863 F.2d at 1147. Also, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations are generally subject to U.S. antidiscrimination laws, see, e.g., Fortino v. Quasar Co., 950 F.2d 389, 393-94 (7th Cir. 1991), and, absent treaty protection - not an issue in this case - a U.S. branch of a foreign corporation is not entitled to an immunity not enjoyed by such subsidiaries. See Sumitomo, 457 U.S. at 189, 102 S.Ct. at 2381-82. [17] We therefore agree with the EEOC, the agency charged with the enforcement of the ADEA, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 626, 628; cf. Ohio Pub. Employees Retirement Sys. v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158, 170-75, 109 S.Ct. 2854, 2862-66, 106 L.Ed.2d 134 (1989), that the law generally applies "to foreign firms operating on U.S. soil." EEOC Policy Guidance, N-915.039, Empl.Prae.Guide (CCH) 5183, 6531 (March 3, 1989), For the reasons we have discussed, we are confident that Congress has never clearly expressed a contrary intent. See Regions Hosp. v. Shalala, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 118 S.Ct. 909, 915, 139 L.Ed.2d 895 (1998). (b) Are employees based abroad counted in determining whether a U.S. - based branch of a foreign employer is subject to the ADEA? [18] Cedel will still not be subject to the ADEA by virtue of its U.S. operations unless Cedel is an "employer" under the ADEA. A business must have at least twenty "employees" to be an "employer." 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). Cedel maintains that, in the case of foreign employers, only domestic employees should be counted. The district court agreed, and, since Cedel had fewer than 20 employees in its U.S. branch, the court granted Cedel's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without considering the number of Cedel's overseas employees. [19] The initial version of the ADEA, adopted in 1967, did not apply to employers with fewer than 25 employees. See Pub.L. No. 90-202, § 11(b), 81 Stat. 605 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 630(b)). (For a brief transitional period, employers with fewer than 50 employees were not subject to the ADEA. Id.) In 1974, the threshold was lowered to its present level. See Pub.L. No. 93-259, § 28(a)(1). We first consider whether the ADEA's definition of "employee" might somehow support Cedel's position. Prior to the 1984 amendments, the definition of an employee was simply "an individual employed by any employer," with exceptions, noted above, not relevant in the present case. See Pub.L. No. 90-202, § 11(f) (1967); Pub.L. No. 93-259, § 28(a)(4) (1974). This language provides no basis for counting only domestic employees. (Neither does the reasoning of the cases limiting the reach of the pre-1984 ADEA to domestic workplaces, since the portions of the FLSA incorporated into the ADEA - in particular § 13(f) of the FLSA - do not purport to modify the definition of employee under § 3(e) of the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 213(f), 203(e); see also, e.g., Cleary, 728 F.2d at 610.) [20] The 1984 amendments supplemented the definition of employee in § 11(f) of the ADEA to include U.S. citizens employed in a foreign workplace. This revision to § 11(f) does not establish that the employees, wherever located, of a foreign corporation with a U.S. branch are not "employees" under the ADEA, for it makes no distinction between foreign and domestic employers. As discussed above, the function of adding § 4(h)(2) in 1984 was only to limit a foreign-based employer's ADEA liability with respect to employees in a foreign workplace, and so provides no grounds for counting only Cedel's domestic employees. The word "employee" does not even appear in § 4(h); if Congress had wished to restrict the definition of "employee" to exclude a foreign employer's foreign workers, it certainly could have done so directly when it amended § 11(f) in 1984. The 1984 foreign law exception also does not aid Cedel. [21] The district court reasoned that the overseas employees of foreign employers should not be counted because they are not protected by the ADEA. But there is no requirement that an employee be protected by the ADEA to be counted; an enumeration, for the purpose of ADEA coverage of an employer, includes employees under age 40, who are also unprotected, see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). The nose count of employees relates to the scale of the employer rather than to the extent of protection. [22] The legislative history of the ADEA does not address the minimum employee requirement. The ADEA was modeled in large part, on Title VII, however, see McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 357, 115 S.Ct. 879, 884, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995), and we have previously identified several reasons for Title VII's minimum-employee requirement, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (15 or more employees). These include the burdens of compliance and potential litigation costs, "the protection of intimate and personal relations existing in small businesses, potential effects on competition and the economy, and the constitutionality of Title VII under the Commerce Clause." Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1314; see also id. at 1322-23 (Parker, J., dissenting). [23] None of these reasons suggests that whether a foreign employer is subject to the ADEA should turn on the size of its U.S. operations alone. Cedel contends that because it has fewer than 20 employees in the United States, it is the equivalent of a small U.S. employer. This is implausible with respect to compliance and litigation costs; their impact on Cedel is better gauged by its worldwide employment. Cedel would not appear to be any more a boutique operation in the United States than would a business with ten employees each in offices in, say, Alaska and Florida, which would be subject to the ADEA. Further, a U.S. corporation with many foreign employees but fewer than 20 domestic ones would certainly be subject to the ADEA. [24] Accordingly, in determining whether Cedel satisfies the ADEA's 20-employee threshold, employees cannot be ignored merely because they work overseas.[fn1] We therefore vacate the judgment on the plaintiffs ADEA count. 2. ERISA [25] The plaintiff contends that Cedel violated ERISA by failing to "pay . . . her pension." Clause 3.2(f) of the separation agreement, attached to her complaint, reads: Pension Plan: Ida [Morelli] shall be paid an unique and tax protected lump sum of USD on April 30, 1994. [26] The district court dismissed the plaintiffs ERISA complaint on three grounds: First, the plaintiff failed to allege the existence of an employee pension benefit plan or that she was a participant in, or beneficiary of, such a plan - the only capacities in which Morelli would have standing to sue, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(7), 1002(8), 1132(a)(1). Second, even if Morelli had alleged the existence of an ERISA qualified pension benefit plan, she failed to allege facts demonstrating that she was a plan participant or was entitled to benefits under the plan. Third, the sole pension plan Cedel had for its New York employees was implemented during 1994, the year the plaintiff was terminated, and the terms of the plan required that an employee be employed on the last day of the plan year in order to receive an employer contribution. Since the plaintiff did not work for Cedel on the last day of the plan year, she was not entitled to any benefits under the terms of the plan. [27] As a basis for the second and third grounds for dismissing the complaint, the district court relied on an affidavit from the office manager of Cedel's New York office, which stated that "Cedel did not have any pension or retirement benefit plan for its New York employees" until July 1, 1994. Consideration of matters outside the pleadings converts the defendant's motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b); James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed. 1997). Although a review of the record below indicates that the plaintiff had enough notice of a potential conversion to permit the trial court to treat the motion as one for summary judgment sua sponte, see Groden v. Random House, Inc., 61 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 Page 46 (2d Cir. 1995); Kopec v. Coughlin, 922 F.2d 152, 154-56 (2d Cir. 1991), in relying on matters outside the pleadings, the court should have explicitly disposed of the motion under Rule 56. See Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669, 671, 92 S.Ct. 1232, 1234, 31 L.Ed.2d 569 (1972) (per curiam). We could still address the motion now if that best served judicial economy. See George v. Kay, 632 F.2d 1103, 1106 (4th Cir. 1980). But since we are already remanding the plaintiffs ADEA claim, and since the viability of the ERISA claim might be affected by the resolution of the ADEA claim, we vacate the judgment on the ERISA count as well. Thus all aspects of the ERISA claim remain open on remand. [28] Should Morelli succeed on her age discrimination claim, the district court will have an opportunity to determine in the first instance whether, judgment in hand, Morelli might meet the definition of a "participant" entitled to bring a civil action under § 502(a)(1) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1). In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 117, 109 S.Ct. 948, 957-58, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), the Supreme Court held that pension-plan "participants" include "former employees who have . . . a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment." 489 U.S. at 117, 109 S.Ct. at 958 (internal quotation marks omitted). If Morelli prevails on her ADEA claim, her status as a participant might depend, for example, on whether "returning to covered employment" means returning to previously covered employment or returning to currently covered employment.[fn2] Conclusion [29] The judgment is vacated with respect to the ADEA and ERISA claims and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. [fn1] We do not follow the district courts that have concluded - without apparent exception - that only the domestic employees of a foreign employer are counted in determining whether the ADEA's 20-employee threshold is met. See, e.g., Robins v. Max Mara, U.S.A., Inc., 914 F. Supp. 1006, 1009 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); cf. Goyette v. DCA Adver., 830 F. Supp. 737, 745 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (Title VII. [fn2] Because we decline to address the merits of the ERISA motion at this time, we need not now consider whether the filing of an antidiscrimination suit, in itself, would provide a plaintiff with "a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment." Compare Mullins v. Pfizer, Inc., 23 F.3d 663, 667 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding standing established by filing of ERISA claim), with Winchester v. Pension Comm., 942 F.2d 1190, 1193 (7th Cir. 1991) (finding standing not conferred by filing of antidiscrimination claim where plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to vindicate ERISA goals while a plan participant).

In the NewsHP hit with age-discrimination lawsuitby four ex-employees

In a new law suit filed on 8/18/2016, four ex-employees of Hewlett Packard are suing for age discrimination, claiming they were purged unfairly as part of a major restructuring involving tens of thousands of layoffs.

An article in USA Today published on 8/24/2016 covers the case and includes a PDF file with the court paper, listing the details of the allegations.

You can read the article and look at the court filing by clicking at the link below:

HP hit with age-discrimination lawsuit by four ex-employees

This last action is indicative of a growing trend on the part of older employees to take action against a age discrimination--a practice that has been taking place in the "high tech" industry and ignored in the public for a very long time.

Your comments are welcome.

--Dr. Flywheel

Revised Article Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs)and Dual Filing

The following article on our web site PDX-TIE.ORG (click below):

Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and Dual Filing

has been revised on 8/22/2016, adding Contact information for Fair Employment Practice Agencies in the USA.
I believe the information to be correct and cover all relevant U.S. States. If anyone on this list finds errors in this information, please contact me with the details and I will fix it ASAP.
Thank you for your support.

Important Article Revised

Useful diagrams for explaining Intel Corp selection of employees for termination in 2015 and 2016

This article was revised with new content, including new charts and diagrams.

Click on the link below to see the revised content:

          Revised Article

--Dr. Flywheel

Note: this article has been revised on 8/22/2016, adding Contact information for Fair Employment Practice Agencies in the USA

The information below was retrieved form the EEOC web site. It is intended to explain the relationship between the Federal Agency (EEOC) and the State Agency (BOLI, DFEH, etc.) of each state in regards to filing discrimination complaints against an employer.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

---

Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and Dual Filing

Many states, counties, cities, and towns have their own laws prohibiting discrimination, as well as agencies responsible for enforcing those laws. We call these state and local agencies "Fair Employment Practices Agencies" (FEPAs). Usually the laws enforced by these agencies are similar to those enforced by EEOC. In some cases, these agencies enforce laws that offer greater protection to workers, such as protection from discrimination because you are married or unmarried, have children or because of your sexual orientation. There also may be different deadlines for filing a charge, different standards for determining whether you are protected by these laws, and different types of relief available to victims of discrimination.

Who to File a Charge With

You can file your charge with either the EEOC or with a Fair Employment Practices Agency.  When an individual initially files with a FEPA that has a worksharing agreement with the EEOC, and the allegation is covered by a law enforced by the EEOC, the FEPA will dual file the charge with EEOC (meaning EEOC will receive a copy of the charge), but will usually retain the charge for processing.  If the charge is initially filed with EEOC and the charge is also covered by state or local law, EEOC dual files the charge with the state or local FEPA (meaning the FEPA will receive a copy of the charge), but ordinarily retains the charge for processing.

To determine if there is a FEPA in your area, please see the information for your nearest EEOC field office, which lists the FEPAs in its jurisdictional area.

Reviewing FEPA Decisions

If a FEPA has a contract with EEOC, a Charging Party may request that the EEOC review the determination of the FEPA. EEOC does not review decisions by non-contract FEPAs. The EEOC will conduct a review only if the request is submitted in writing within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the FEPA’s determination. If we receive your request for a review after the 15 day time frame, it will be considered untimely and the EEOC may not conduct a review. The request should also include the reason why the Charging Party is requesting the review (e.g. relevant witnesses not contacted, evidence not considered, or presence of new evidence).

The following information was retrieved from public sources:

Contact information for Fair Employment Practice Agencies in the USA

ALABAMA FEPA

Alabama Department of Human Resources
Office of Equal Employment & Civil Rights
334-242-1550
www.dhr.state.al.us/eeo

ALASKA FEPA

Alaska State Commission on Human Rights
800A Suite 204
Anchorage, AK 99501-3669
907-276-4692
www.gov.state.ak.us/aschr/aschr.htm

ARIZONA FEPA

Arizona State Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
402 W Congress South Bldg. #215
Tucson, AZ 85701
520-628-6500
www.attorney-general.state.az.us/civil_rights/

ARKANSAS FEPA

No FEPA state agency listed

CALIFORNIA FEPA

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Enforcement Section
Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
(916) 322-3360
caag.state.ca.us/civilrights/

California Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing
2014 T St. Suite 210
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-227-2878
www.dfeh.ca.gov/

COLORADO FEPA

Colorado Civil Rights Division
1560 Broadway Suite 1050
Denver, CO 80202
303-894-2997
800-262-4845 in state
www.dora.state.co.us/civil-rights

CONNECTICUT FEPA

Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
21 Grand St.
Hartford, CT 06106
860-541-3400
800-477-5737
www.state.ct.us/chro

DELAWARE FEPA

Delaware Human Relations Division
820 French St. 4th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-577-5050
www.state.de.us/sos/human.htm

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEPA

District of Columbia, Office of Human Rights
441 4th St. NW Suite 970N
Washington, DC 20001
phone:202-727-3900
fax: 202-724-3786
ohr.dc.gov/

FLORIDA FEPA

Florida Commission on Human Relations
Building F Suite 240
325 John Knox Rd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-4149
850-488-7082
800-342-8170
fchr.state.fl.us/

GEORGIA FEPA

Georgia Human Relations Commission
225 Peachtree St. NE Suite 207
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-656-6046
www.ganet.org/ghrc

HAWAII FEPA

Hawaii Civil Rights Commission
830 Punchbowl St. Room 411
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-586-8636
www.state.hi.us/hcrc

IDAHO FEPA

Idaho Human Rights Commission
1109 Main St. 4th Floor
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720
208-334-2873
www.state.id.us/ihrc

ILLINOIS FEPA

Illinois Dept. of Human Rights
100 W Randolph St. Suite 10-100
Chicago, IL 60601
312-814-6200
800-662-3942
www.state.il.us/dhr

INDIANA FEPA

Indiana Civil Rights Commission
100 N Senate Ave. Room N103
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-232-2600
800-628-2909
www.state.in.us/icrc

IOWA FEPA

Iowa Civil Rights Commission
211 E Maple St.
Grimes State Office Bldg.
Des Moines, IA 50309-1858
515-281-4121
800-457-4416
www.state.ia.us/government/crc

KANSAS FEPA

Kansas Human Rights Commission
900 SW Jackson St. Suite 851-S
Topeka, KS 66612-1258
785-296-3206
www.ink.org/public/khrc

KENTUCKY FEPA

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Contract Compliance
Capitol Annex, Room 370
Frankfort, KY 40601
Telephone: (502) 564-2874
Facsimile: (502) 564-1055
www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/descript/eeoc.htm

LOUISIANA FEPA

Louisiana Commission on Human Rights
1001 N. 23rd St., Suite 262
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
Phone: (225) 342-6969
Fax: (225) 342-2063
TDD: 1-888-248-0859
www.gov.state.la.us/depts/lchr.htm

MAINE FEPA

Maine Human Rights Commission
51 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0051
207-624-6050
www.state.me.us/mhrc/

MARYLAND FEPA

Maryland Human Rights Commission
6 St. Paul St. 9th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202-1631
410-767-8600
800-637-6247 in state
www.mchr.state.md.us

MASSACHUSETTS FEPA

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
1 Ashburton Pl., Room 601
Boston, MA 02108-1518
617-727-3990
www.state.ma.us/mcad/

MICHIGAN FEPA

Michigan Department of Civil Rights
Victor Bldg. Suite 700
201 N Washington Square
517-335-3165
www.mdcr.state.mi.us/mdcr/

MISSISSIPPI FEPA

No FEPA state agency listed

MISSOURI FEPA

Missouri Commission Human Rights
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
P.O. Box 1129
3315 W Truman Blvd.
Jefferson City, MO 65102-3325
573-751-3325
www.dolir.state.mo.us/hr

MONTANA FEPA

Dept. of Labor and Industry, Human Rights Commission
P.O. Box 1728
Helena, MT 59620
406/444-4344
800-542-0807 in state
dli.state.mt.us/decisions/hrcdec.htm

NEBRASKA FEPA

Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 94934
Lincoln, NE 68509
402-471-2024
800-642-6112
www.nol.org/home/NEOC/

NEVADA FEPA

Dept. of Employment Training and Rehabilitation
Nevada Equal Rights Commission
1515 E. Tropicana Ave. Suite 590
Las Vegas, NV 89119-6522
702-486-7161
detr.state.nv.us

NEW HAMPSHIRE FEPA

New Hampshire Human Rights Commission
2 Chenell Dr.
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-2767
www.state.nh.us/hrc

NEW JERSEY FEPA

New Jersey Dept. of Law and Public Safety
Division on Civil Rights
140 E Front St.
P.O. Box 090
Trenton, NJ 08625-0090
609-292-4605
www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr

NEW MEXICO FEPA

New Mexico Human Rights Division
Dept. of Labor
1596 Pacheco St.
Santa Fe, NM 87502
505-827-6838
800-566-9471
www3.state.nm.us/dol

NEW YORK FEPA

New York State Division of Human Rights
55 W 125th St.
New York, NY 10027
212-961-8400
www.nysdhr.com

NORTH CAROLINA FEPA

North Carolina Human Relations Commission
217 W Jones St. 4th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27603
919-733-7996
www.doa.state.nc.us/hrc/homepage.htm

NORTH DAKOTA FEPA

North Dakota Dept. of Labor, Division of Human Rights
State Capital
600 East Blvd.
Bismarck, ND 58505
701-328-2660
800-582-8032
www.state.nd.us/labor/Division of Human Rights.htm

OHIO FEPA

Ohio Civil Rights Commission
111 E Broad St. Suite 301
Columbus, OH 43205
614-466-5928
www.state.oh.us/crc

OKLAHOMA FEPA

Oklahoma Civil Rights Commission
2101 N Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
405-521-2360
www.onenet.net/~ohrc2

OREGON FEPA

Oregon Civil Rights Division
Bureau of Labor and Industry
800 NE Oregon St. #32 Suite 1070
Portland, OR 97232
503-731-4075
www.boli.state.or.us/civil

PENNSYLVANIA FEPA

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
301 Chestnut Street, Suite 300
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Voice: (717) 787-4410
Telephone: (717) 783-9308 or (717) 787-4087
www.phrc.state.pa.us/

RHODE ISLAND FEPA

Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights
10 Abbott Park Pl.
Providence, RI 02903-3768
401-222-2661
www.state.ri.us/manual/data/queres/stdept_.idc?id=16

SOUTH CAROLINA FEPA

South Carolina Human Affairs Commission
P.O. Box 4490
2611 Forest Dr. Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29240
803-737-7800
www.state.sc.us/schac/

SOUTH DAKOTA FEPA

South Dakota Dept. of Commerce and Regulation
Division of Human Rights
118 W Capital Ave.
Pierre, SD 57501
605-773-4493
www.state.sd.us/dcr/hr

TENNESSEE FEPA

Tennessee Human Rights Commission
530 Church Street, Suite 400
Cornerstone Square Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0745
Phone: 615-741-5825
www.state.tn.us/humanrights/

TEXAS FEPA

Texas Commission on Human Rights
P.O. Box 13493
6830 Highway 290 East, Suite 250
Austin, TX 78711
512-437-3450
www.state.tx.us/agency/344.html

UTAH FEPA

Utah Anti-Discrimination Division
P.O. Box 146640
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6640
801-530-6801
laborcommission.utah.gov/

VERMONT FEPA

Vermont Human Rights Commission
135 State St. Drawer 33
Montpelier, VT 05633-6301
802-828-2480
www.hrc.state.vt.us/

VIRGINIA FEPA

Council on Human Rights
Suite 1202 Washington Bldg.
1100 Bank St.
Richmond, VA 23219
804-225-2292
800-633-5510
www.chr.state.va.us

WASHINGTON FEPA

Washington State Human Rights Commission
P.O. Box 42490
711 S Capital Way #402
Olympia, WA 98504-2490
360-753-6770
800-233-3247
www.wa.gov/hrc

WEST VIRGINIA FEPA

West Virginia Human Rights Commission
1321 Plaza East Room 108A
Charleston, WV 25301
304-558-2616
888-676-5546
www.state.wv.us/wvhrc

WISCONSIN FEPA

Wisconsin Equal Rights Division
Dept. of Workforce Development
P.O. Box 8928
201 E Washington Ave. Room 407
Madison, WI 53708-8928
608-266-6860
www.dwd.state.wi.us/er

WYOMING FEPA

Wyoming Department of Employment Labor Standards
Fair Employment Program
1510 E. Pershing, West Wing, Suite 2015
Cheyenne, WY 82002
http://wydoe.state.wy.us/doe.asp?ID=247