
DATE: Tuesday, March 4, 1997                TAG: 9703040269

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A1   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER 

                                            LENGTH:  136 lines

JOB DISCRIMINATION RISKIER NOW, BOSSES FIND EEOC'S TIGHTER FOCUS HAS BROUGHT MORE PENALTIES THAN EVER AGAINST EMPLOYERS HERE.

It's been a bad couple of years for bosses who discriminate illegally against workers in Southeastern Virginia, and it's getting worse.

In 1995, victims of discrimination won $1.1 million after filing complaints with the Norfolk office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In 1996, that more than doubled, to $2.3 million.

This year, the figure is on pace to hit $3 million.

The reason: After years of investigators wasting time on unfounded or marginal complaints, leaving some cases hanging for years at a time, the EEOC is focusing on the cases most likely to go to court.

The result: More employers in the Norfolk area, which includes all of Southeastern Virginia, are being hit with more penalties than ever before.

Credit, in part, a new director - Herbert Brown, a Portsmouth native who worked for two decades in the EEOC's Boston and St. Louis offices before coming home.

Credit, too, a national crackdown among EEOC offices, a new plan that quickly disposes of marginal cases to focus more on the hot potatoes.

``The system is working for us,'' Brown told the Norfolk and Portsmouth Bar Association earlier this month. ``Not only that, but it is making an impact in the community. . . . Today, the EEOC is perhaps better off than it's ever been in terms of teeth.''

Local lawyers who represent employees agree.

``There's just a different atmosphere,'' said Christopher C. North, a Newport News employment lawyer. ``(Brown's) predecessor in the office was very employer-oriented. Now, twice as much work is getting done with half as many people.''

Scott M. Reed, a Virginia Beach lawyer who has filed more discrimination cases in Norfolk's federal court than any other attorney in the past year, agrees.

``Herb Brown was a breath of fresh air,'' Reed said. ``His coming, along with the change of plans, was a real boost to the agency. . . . It boosted the morale there because it freed them from having to investigate every case.''

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to know exactly which employers have been slapped with adverse rulings from the EEOC. Complaints are confidential. The EEOC cannot release names of offending employers, even after investigations are over.

Also, many cases are settled confidentially, though Brown said he tries to avoid that. Other settlements are not confidential, but they can be divulged only by the parties themselves, Brown said.

One point is clear: The numbers are way up.

In fiscal 1995, the agency found cause to support discrimination claims in 13 cases. That doubled in fiscal 1996 to 26 cases. It is on pace to double again this year, Brown said.

That means more money for more victims. Last year, 88 discrimination victims got awards totaling $2.3 million. That's an average of $26,136 each.

The message is not lost on corporate bosses, North says.

``In the old days, there were very few for-cause findings. They very seldom got to that point,'' North said. ``I think the employers are starting to realize this.''

Details of those cases, however, seldom trickle out.

In Norfolk and around the country, few discrimination cases ever get to federal court, where the paperwork is nearly always public. The EEOC files only two or three cases a year on behalf of victims in Norfolk's federal court. Individuals filed 69 discrimination lawsuits last year in the same court. Such lawsuits are almost always settled or dismissed before they get to trial.

Still, the EEOC does release a statistical glimpse of discrimination in the Norfolk region.

The Norfolk office is not big, comparatively. It had 733 cases pending in March 1996, compared with 999 in Richmond and 1,843 in Baltimore.

But in one respect, the Norfolk area is unusual, Brown says: Many complaints come from city government employees.

Today, 92 of the 444 pending Title VII discrimination cases in Norfolk - charges of race, sex, religion or national origin discrimination or retaliation - are against local governments.

That compares badly, Brown said, with his experience in Boston and St. Louis. Brown would not say which city governments or agencies have attracted the most complaints.

``My philosophy is the city should be the best corporate citizen,'' Brown says. ``Unfortunately, a lot of cities and local government agencies here have not changed very much.''

In other ways, the Norfolk area is more typical.

In Norfolk, the most common complaints involve race discrimination (29 percent), sex discrimination or harassment (18 percent), disability discrimination (14 percent) and retaliation against employees who file EEOC complaints or who cooperate with EEOC investigations (18 percent).

Relatively few involve age, religion or national origin.

In the past, these complaints swamped Norfolk investigators. They had to investigate every case that walked through the door, even those in which the investigator suspected there was no support.

But last year, investigators were freed to dismiss some cases quickly - often within 30 days - and spend more time on others that they deem more serious. (Employees whose cases are not investigated can go directly to federal court and file suit.)

The result was dramatic, Brown said. When Brown arrived in Norfolk in late 1995, about 1,300 cases were pending. Some had been around for three or four years. Today half as many cases - 652 - are pending, split among seven investigators and one trainee.

``We now, as an office, have more control over our destiny and our daily workload,'' Brown said.

Brown's advice to companies facing discrimination complaints is blunt: ``If you demonstrate immediate and appropriate action (to eliminate discrimination), you're free of liability. If you don't get rid of it now, you'll pay for it later.'' ILLUSTRATION: [Color photo]

Herbert Brown, the new EEOC director in Norfolk, says his office is

focusing on cases most likely to go to court.

VP [Color Graphic]

MONEY BENEFITS TO DISCRIMINATION VICTIMS

[For copy of graphic, see microfilm]

THREE CASES

Three cases filed by the EEOC in Norfolk's federal court in the past

year:

NORFOLK AIRPORT SHUTTLE. AGE DISCRIMINATION: On Jan. 13, EEOC sued

Groome Transportation (trading as Norfolk Airport Shuttle). EEOC

claims that two men, age 69 and 74, were not hired as shuttle bus

drivers because of their age. Case is pending.