View Full Version : How do you know that your case is a strong 'A'

02-10-2009, 04:51 AM
How and when do you know that your case is a strong 'A'?

02-11-2009, 10:08 AM
questions .... i have been seeking that answer myself since filing in June '08.

from a combination of on-line research, book excerpts, talking with attorneys, etc. - it would seem an 'A' case would have some special theme .... numerous employees involved (like a Walmart class of workers), or something 'sexy' - that would serve to send a public msg to employers across the country...

it did find a breakdown of the 3 somewhere .... now to go back and find it

02-11-2009, 10:26 AM
FYI - EEOC classifications of A, B or C.

If your employer has aroused the fiery temper of the EEOC, how can you avoid being burned? From the experience described above (as well as other, less harrowing, agency encounters), I suggest the following:

Discover the priority of your claim. When the EEOC investigates charges, it assigns them initial classifications of A, B or C. The "C" classification is the best news for employers because it is the lowest priority and a candidate for summary dismissal.

The "B" classification means the charge will probably be dropped into the investigative hopper--and will be handled on a who-knows-when timeframe.

Employers whose claims are categorized as an "A" better get asbestos pants because the dragon is close and getting warmed up.

Even so, not all "A" classifications are the same. The agency has sub classifications of "A-2" (which indicates that a cause finding is likely, but that the EEOC won't litigate) or "A-1" (which indicates that the agency may pursue the claim itself).

The investigator won't necessarily tell you the classification, but with a little analysis and inquiry, you usually can figure it out. If the following things take place, consider yourself a candidate for the "A" classification:

* You have been asked to submit a position statement.

* The request for information from the agency appears to have been written with close attention to the allegations of the charge.

* A questionnaire (like the one described at the beginning of this article) has been sent to former employees.

* The EEOC did not invite you to mediation.

* The investigator seems to have a working knowledge of the charge or seems familiar with the allegations.

************************************************** **************************

The mediation program design targets 'B' cases<113> for possible resolution.

In general, at the time a charge is filed, the charging party is advised that voluntary mediation is available and is asked whether or not he/she is willing to participate. This question is asked at the time that the case is classified upon intake.

Once the intake officer classifies the charge as a B, and it is confirmed that the charging party has agreed that he/she is willing to participate in mediation, the respondent is sent the charge along with a letter that offers the respondent the opportunity to participate in mediation

************************************************** ***************************

In June 1995 the EEOC instituted a new three-tiered policy for processing charges to reduce its backlog and to more effectively fulfill its mission of redressing employment discrimination (7).

Previously, EEOC policy required full investigation of all charges. Under the new policy, charges that meet the criteria of EEOC national or local enforcement plans and those for which an initial review detects a high probability that discrimination occurred are classified as category A and fully investigated.

Charges in which evidence of discrimination is not compelling or in which the charging party or the employer is not covered under one of the laws enforced by the EEOC are classified as category C and slated for immediate dismissal.

Charges for which additional evidence is needed to determine whether discrimination occurred are classified as category B. With category B cases, the EEOC routinely sends the employer a letter asking for its side of the story, but the claims of the two parties are verified by further independent investigation only as resources permit (7).

Field office investigators categorize cases during or shortly after intake on the basis of the initial evidence provided by the charging party and their general impressions of the charge.

02-11-2009, 10:41 AM
FYI - EEOC classifications of A, B or C ( Continued )

EEOC intake officers group charges into several classifications: C, B, A, and A1.

Claims classified in the “A” group have indications of a reasonable cause, are egregious, or deal with unsettled legal issues. Claims in the “A” classification are eligible for mediation upon the request of both parties or if mediation is deemed appropriate by the EEOC district director and the regional attorney (Keppler, 2003: 40).

“Charges classified ‘A1’ may be ineligible for mediation, since the EEOC can choose to litigate these potentially meritorious claims” (Cohen, 2002: 24).

Because they lack a reasonable cause, “C” cases become candidates for immediate dismissal and are not recommended for the EEOC mediation program.

Claims grouped in the “B” category indicate a strong suspicion of discrimination and are in need of further investigation (McDermott, Obar, Jose, & Bowers, 2000). As a result, “B” cases are qualified for the mediation program.

Within the classification types, certain “A” and “B” charges are particularly accommodating to settlement through the mediation process:

• When the parties to the dispute have continued an employment relationship;

• When mediation takes place soon after intake, before the parties become polarized over the accusations;


• Claims covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in which there was a failure to reasonably accommodate;

• Situations in which both parties exhibit leverage toward one another;

• When there are a small number of simple issues as opposed to a large number of complex issues;

• Charges involving individuals as opposed to groups seeking class-wide relief;

• When the individual making the claim lacks a history of making such claims;

• Those charges that are not considered novel legal issues.

Although the above conditions do not, by themselves, guarantee a certain result, they do increase the probability that a resolution can be reached through mediation (Cohen, 2002: 24-25).


02-11-2009, 11:29 AM
FYI - EEOC classifications of A, B or C ( Continued )

What To Do Once Your EEOC Charge Has Been Filed

It is important to understand that the EEOC is currently back logged with thousands of unaddressed worker complaints. To deal with this tremendous back log the EEOC will begin channelling cases to one of three "tracks."

Track A will be for cases where there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

Track B is for cases that require more investigation.

Track C is for cases that the EEOC investigators believe do not have reasonable cause to go forward.

This track system obviously means a lot to you as a charging party at the EEOC. To state the obvious, your goal is to be placed on Track A and to avoid being placed on Track C. Track C complaints will be immediately dismissed without further investigation.

To make sure you do not mistakenly end up on Track C, prepare carefully for your initial meeting with the EEOC investigator. The agency is relying on you to participate and provide them with as much relevant information as possible (e.g. witnesses and documents) so that they can channel the case to the correct Track.

As a result, investigate your case prior to meeting with the EEOC, if possible. Then, show up at the initial meeting with affidavits from witnesses, statistics and anything else that you believe will persuade the investigator that your case should be placed on Track A. At a minimum, you want to be placed on Track B so that a further, more detailed investigation will occur.

After the EEOC receives your charge of discrimination and all relevant information that you have provided to it, the commission will typically require the employer to provide it with what is known as a "Position Statement." Your goal is to make every attempt to review the Position Statement once it comes in to the EEOC, so you can show the commission how it is factually incorrect and is actually a pretext for a hidden motive, discrimination. The EEOC now allows workers to provide an immediate reply to the employer's Position Statement. It is imperative that you make every effort towards seeing and replying to the employer's EEOC Position Statement. You may want to retain an employment attorney to assist you in this process because anything you say in your reply, (to borrow a phrase) "can and will be used against you" by the employer.

Another change underway at the EEOC concerns a plan calling for voluntary mediation. The idea is to promote settlement when the parties are willing to engage in voluntary mediation. Generally, participation in voluntary mediation is a good idea. Again, this may be a time where you may want to retain an employment attorney to assist you in getting the best deal possible.

Source: Benezra & Culver L.L.C.

02-11-2009, 11:35 AM
FYI - EEOC Classification 'A' - Reasonable Cause Finding

Getting back to the question opening this piece É Imagine that you have a "reasonable cause" finding from the EEOC and a letter from the Department of Justice giving you a right to file a lawsuit in federal court (but the DOJ is "too busy" to litigate on your behalf). Your attorneys are threatening to walk if you don´t accept the latest incarnation of an unreasonable settlement offer that you turned down several times before you even hired them.

?Have you really gained anything from your EEOC "reasonable cause finding"? Yes, indeed. You have.

?After going through one employer-sponsored review after another - each one upholding the employer´s action against you - you finally get the satisfaction of knowing that the federal civil rights enforcement agency (the experts on discrimination) doesn´t think you are lying or crazy.

Regardless of the fact that the EEOC´s powers are limited in cases involving state agencies (they can only conciliate, not litigate in such cases), you have just withstood one the most impartial reviews of your case to date - and this impartial body has told you, "Yeah, we believe you were wronged, and we believe you should be made whole."

?Not only do you get some psychic relief from this development, you get to tell other people. An EEOC reasonable cause finding is very useful in the "court of public opinion" - it helps demystify the arcane realm of employer rationalization, translate the technicalities of tenure and promotion, and illuminate the illusory nature of the ivory tower.

After getting the EEOC finding, you may not need to respond so often to the question, "So, why do you think you were discriminated against?" Just saying that the EEOC found in your favor cuts through skepticism - rendering legitimacy and credibility to your lived experience. This can add to the number of people who are prepared to take your allegations seriously and to help you.

?An EEOC reasonable cause finding also serves as personal vindication. It gives you the stamina to continue standing up for yourself, even as you are assailed by the reality that "justice" all too often means "just us" (i.e., the gatekeepers and power brokers who excluded you in the first place).

?Finally, an EEOC reasonable cause finding forces some modicum of accountability on the institution that discriminated against you. The university may puff itself up in denial and righteous indignation when the finding is issued, but that is all part of a well-rehearsed strategy to hide oppression under the cover of victimhood.

?This fact was borne in upon me several months ago when I was making "small talk" with a fellow traveler at the Oakland airport. The conversation got around to my tenure and promotion battle.

When I mentioned the EEOC reasonable cause finding, my new acquaintance stopped me and said, "Wait. Let me tell you how the employer responded... they said that the EEOC didn´t do a thorough investigation, that the investigator didn´t interview the appropriate individuals, that they didn´t get a chance to present all of their evidence, and that the investigator was biased for whatever reason."

?I was stunned. His summary was right on target. When I asked how he knew what my institution had said, he told me that he had worked for the EEOC until retiring a few years ago, and that the response SDS had made regarding the EEOC findings in my favor was the standard response to a favorable finding for the plaintiff. He then commented wryly, "If the finding is for the university, it´s a press opportunity, but if it´s for the charging party, then it´s a flawed investigation." Go figure.

Source: -wage@wage.org-

02-16-2009, 05:21 PM
Hey thanks ptsd Cop! This is great material that everyone should review.


02-18-2009, 03:39 AM
Thanks UcL Curt ...

sounds like Meatball may have an A or A-1 case ....

Hopefully in the Resistance Academy, we can index and archive such -

02-19-2009, 06:49 PM
I never got a rating from the EEOC. What does that mean? I called the EEOC and they are confused about this rating stuff-please give more clarification as to where you got this info. Please tell me where you found this information I would like to know more.

All For Justice


02-20-2009, 01:47 PM
Lori ...

i'm not sure the EEOC would reveal a claimant's case classification or not>

the last 2 in my posts above have the sources... most of them came from the EEOC's own published information, employment law firms, on-line search, book excerpts on EEOC -

for example, if you google 'EEOC case classification' or eeoc charge classifcation or other variations

i am re-posting from above -

In June 1995 the EEOC instituted a new three-tiered policy for processing charges to reduce its backlog and to more effectively fulfill its mission of redressing employment discrimination (7).

Previously, EEOC policy required full investigation of all charges. Under the new policy, charges that meet the criteria of EEOC national or local enforcement plans and those for which an initial review detects a high probability that discrimination occurred are classified as category A and fully investigated.

Charges in which evidence of discrimination is not compelling or in which the charging party or the employer is not covered under one of the laws enforced by the EEOC are classified as category C and slated for immediate dismissal.

Charges for which additional evidence is needed to determine whether discrimination occurred are classified as category B. With category B cases, the EEOC routinely sends the employer a letter asking for its side of the story, but the claims of the two parties are verified by further independent investigation only as resources permit (7).

02-21-2009, 02:30 AM

then what good is it to us? I'm thinking that maybe EEOC uses that for their own system. I mean if we don't know and they won't tell us screw it don't bother your already over loaded minds-don't sweat the small stuff-concentrate on what's important. We are already over loaded with many things-keep your mind healthy and work on the big stuff. I think I spent 5 hours on the phone and on the web and I could not see where these EEOC classifications were a priority. I'm sure everyone knows my feeling about the EEOC!@#$%\



02-21-2009, 12:56 PM
sorry LoriV ... if you refer back to the top/beginning of this thread - i was merely responding to a post by member 'Questions' about a strong A case .... i had come across it myself and so provided what i found.... and Curt the UcL felt it might be useful in general.

I can't explain what your local office knows or doesn't - reveals to you or doesn't

the materials i posted come from the EEOC's own information, employment law book excerpts and employment attorney law firms opinions all on the A,B,C classifications, implemented in 1995 by EEOC.

as you probably know there are 50 + EEOC offices around the country and hundreds or thousands of intake and investigative staff - we know they don't all do things the same or as we expect.

In fact, my case has involved 2 different offices prob less than 100 miles apart - and even they have differences....

The MAIN POINT with this being that - no matter what office one would wind-up with, they have some way of prioritizing (classification) of cases and it happens very early on --- based on documents/information submitted.

so all should do their best to have your case/evidence well organized when you first submit because as we know, some folks do not hear back for several weeks or longer. By the time you do... your case materials may have already made a 'first impression' or been sized up by intake or investigators who are key to the final outcome ....

thanks for sharing and your unique mission for us all

02-22-2009, 12:55 PM
No apology(sic) needed,

My point is don't get hung up on the EEOC. Let them do their Job and use their information to your advantage-they are too draining!!



02-22-2009, 01:59 PM
What you keep driving home - get a copy of the EEOC investigative report - keeeps getting my hopes up...

is there a forn to request that - or is it a letter intiated by charging party, do they ever deny the copy ?

we appreciate again for the very hopeful insights from your experiences

thx and keep on - keepin' on ....

BMW Barbie
11-22-2010, 04:39 AM
Great post on EEOC Track status.

11-22-2010, 04:45 AM
Punch,quiet guy, Standy, BMW Barbie, ETC.

I like this site, I do watch often, I just wanted to share for some in sight!

Filed my charge for discrimination/retaliation in May of 2010, I was notified about 1 week later if I wanted Mediation? My attorney says yes, so I checked the box "yes"... Waited for about a week then a phone call from investigator stating " your charge is classified an A charge and is not eligible for mediation"! So time goes on and as of November was told by Attorney" your charge was sent to EEOC Legal Departmet for them to sign off on a cause finding in your favor"! So a charge classified as an "A" gets the most attention! I filed in May 2010 and will have my cause finding by December 2010! That my friends is unprecendated speed by the EEOC! I did submit evidence' but as well the EEOC was on site to the former employer in july 2010! The EEOC has worked hard for myself quickly! Yes the investigator said..... a charge "A" is not available for mediation, but a charge "B" is..... A charge "C" is most likely dismissed! Unprecendended speed from the EEOC, going to conciliation in less then 1 months!Wish me luck! thanks!

11-22-2010, 09:12 AM
Hi ptsdCop, and all, thanks for a wonderful articlie/information. Is there similar information for the Civil Right Commission as well, I am now in receipt of the reply from my organization, and of course their stand is that they did no wrong, and that I wasn't doing my job correctly, although they had no documentation,except for some emails that they sent to my boss, and someone else. I was never aware of this information, in any form, it was not given to me for review, or so that I could rectify this behavior(if there was any). They are trying to make me out as the bad guy. They are also aware of my disability (work place injury), and they refuse to accomodate me (even though it would not cause any due hardship). They are also aware that another employee doing this job was being assisted by another male employee. How do I know if my case is in the ABC category? Lastly, the Civil Rights investigator that I have does not seem positive, she didn't say, it, it is just the way she acts, responds, and doesn't answer my questions clearly. Can anyone help on this one?

11-22-2010, 03:29 PM
Dodge, you must have a heck of a case for the EEOC to act so quickly. The mayor of a town near us is suing Walmart for religious discrimination and the EEOC jumped right on his case as well.

Curt1, I initially filed a complaint with the Washingotn State Human Rights Commission and that was a TOTAL joke. The only positive thing it did for me was to add to my paper trail of people contacted to let them know what was happening to me in a state agency that is SUPPOSED to help people not hurt them.

11-22-2010, 03:36 PM

Wow.Yes indeed your case must be one heck of a strong case for the EEOC to act so fast.Congrats !

11-22-2010, 06:08 PM
Track A? Track B? Track C? The issue I have is this is that it all depends on your investigator and their ability to decipher and understand what you are presenting. Let's say your investigator has 35 cases that he has to make a decision on in two days. Since he's rushed, those 35 cases may not get all the attention that they need. So Track A for 2 cases, Track B for the majority of the others, and Track C for several more. "Job well done!" He's completed his 35 cases in two days and everyone is happy. The two people with categorized Track A cases are fortunate. However, what if some of those Track B cases should have been actually on Track A. Checks and balances?

Also, does every investigator have the same level of understanding? What if the complainant is incapable of presenting his case in an organized orderly manner. Remember, not everyone has the same level of education and literacy. Well investigators Jim and Jane are experts and takes little time to decipher information even when the complainant lacks the skill. But, Jesse and Marla are impatient, nervous, and can't read between the lines too good. It's highly unlikely they will understand complainants who can't explain their situation very well, if not impossible. Neither them nor the complainants have very good understanding. Checks and balances?

I could go on with several other examples. The point is I don't believe there is enough consistency in the way Track A, B, and C categories are assigned. I did research on this in college and without a system of checks and balances, categorization becomes way too subjective! This leads to my conclusion that it's really based on luck, getting the "right" investigator. And, good luck on that! When my case was first presented to an EEOC investigator, he couldn't even understand my English let alone the evidence and documentation that I presented. There was one paper I had that specifically reprimanded the sexual pervert several other times. The investigator could not understand what relevance that had to do with my case.

11-22-2010, 06:37 PM
I HEAR you JOLIE, loud and clear and you are so right! STILL, in our grown up years we place blind faith in other humans and feel as if somehow they will protect us.....we even depend on this Government body to protect us and we see its just not going to happen, except by luck, as you said depending on their case load and what GOALS they must be for their jobs...is that a FARCE or WHAT?

So, even though there are police, Doctors, nurses, med techs, insurance companies, the FBI, the FTC, the president, the senator, the VET....guess what, they are ALL JUST PEOPLE...do we really put our faith into people............ " YES WE DO" THOSE of us who are trusting to a fault and time and again we SEE and LEARN, you can't trust people because they are HUMAN.

Which leads me to a biblical approach.......who was it that said ...

" MAN can not RULE himself "

Jeremiah 10:23:

I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.........

Psalms 146:3

Do not put YOUR trust in nobles,

Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs............

We tend to have blind faith in the world as we know it, even when we KNOW better, because these entities decorate themselves as a safe haven...........sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't, because again their just people like you and I.

We have to give it to "GOD"

BMW Barbie
11-22-2010, 09:06 PM
Jolie and Recovering, thank you! I needed to hear what you both had to say, especially today. There's a scene in the movie The Great Debaters between the teacher and the students that I've memorized. The scene is a reminder for me to give it to "God".


Teacher: Who is the judge?

Students: The judge is God.

Teacher: Why is he God?

Students: Because he decides who wins or loses. Not my opponeent.

Teacher: Who is your opponent?

Students: He does not exist.

Teacher: Why does he not exist?

Students: Because he is a mere dissenting voice of the truth I speak!

11-23-2010, 12:22 AM
thank you for this post it really give me a lot of idea