Back to Information Guides

June 20, 2001

Kathryn Moss, Ph.D. Michael Ullman, M.A., Scott Burris, J.D., Matthew Johnsen, Ph.D., & Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D.

Under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals who believe they have been subjected to disability-based discrimination in employment may file an administrative charge. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has responsibility for the Title I administrative charge process. An individual may file a lawsuit only after the administrative process has been exhausted.

This Information Brief analyzes the ADA employment discrimination administrative charge system. Congress requires individuals to file complaints with the EEOC before going to court. Complainants expect that the EEOC will investigate their cases, but for most, it is just a place where their cases grow stale.

Our findings show that:

• The budget cannot keep up with the increased workload that the commission has experienced. Consequently, the agency struggled to process more cases than it could properly handle.
• The mediation program is a mixed blessing. More cases have been processed, but the methods of processing the cases merit further investigation. The data suggest that the EEOC's system of triaging administrative charges results in a substantial number of errors in identifying valid cases of discrimination. Between July 26, 1992 (the effective date of Title I) and September 30, 2000, only 16.2% of all ADA complaints resulted in benefits to claimants.
• Cases are handled differently from office to office. This affects the outcome. Also, outcomes of ADA charges depend on whether an EEOC office or FEPA investigates the charge. Although individuals whose charges were investigated by a FEPA were more likely to receive a beneficial outcome from their charge, they received considerably lower monetary awards than did individuals whose charges were investigated by the EEOC.

Budget allocations for 1990, 1994 and 1997 divided by the number of charges filed each year as well as the estimated allocation for 2001 divided by the number of charges estimated to be filed in 2001.

Recommendation: Congress should increase funding for the EEOC.

The EEOC took decisive action in the mid-1990s to reform its charge processing procedures through triage and mediation. As a result, it has made commendable progress in many areas.

The median length of time taken to process ADA charges has been reduced (from 445 days in 1994 to 128 days in 2000); the inventory of ADA charges awaiting resolution has decreased (from over 23,000 in 1995 to less than 7,000 in 2000); the rate of "reasonable cause" determinations has increased (from 1.5% in 1995 to 11% in 2000); and mediation use has increased (3,277 mediations of ADA cases between January 1, 1999 and September 30, 2000). Of all mediations, 62.2% (n=2,039) resulted in beneficial outcomes for claimants.



Only a small percentage of charges bring benefits to the people who file them.

Between July 26, 1992 (the effective date of Title I) and September 30, 2000, only 16.2% of all ADA complaints resulted in benefits to claimants.

It is impossible to know what the "correct" rate of benefits should be, but the data suggest that the EEOC's system of triaging charges results in a substantial number of errors in identifying valid cases of discrimination.

How the process works:

Under the agency's current system of case triage, the Priority Charge Handling Procedures, an EEOC staff member initially interviews each person bringing a case. Based on that intake interview, the staff member assigns a priority categorization based on the information the person provides during the interview and the claimant's credibility. "A" is the highest priority categorization, "B" the middle, and "C" the lowest. That initial categorization effectively determines the extent to which the claim will be investigated. After categorization, the vast majority of cases receive minimal investigative attention and outcomes that favor employers, so unless the complaining party's initial presentation is a valid indicator of the merits of the case, the system cannot possibly be accurate.

Recommendation: Validating the accuracy of the system should be a high EEOC priority.

Charge Resolutions by Prioritizing as of September 30, 2000

Category	Closed Cases	Overall Benifit Rate %
A	20,793	22.8
B	69,239	12.7
C	30,428	1.8
TOTAL	120,467	11.7

The data turned up other indicators of inaccuracy. Categorization and outcome rates differ enormously from office to office, far more than the likely variance in the distribution of meritorious cases.

Since the beginning of the PCHP through September 30, 2000, rates of "A" categorization ranged from 4.9% to 36.6% among EEOC offices. During the period of July 26, 1992 through September 30, 2000, benefit rates ranged from 6.8% to 18.9%.

To a lesser extent, categorization and outcomes vary by type of disability.

Among the charges closed as of September 30, 2000, rates of "A" categorization ranged from 12% to 54% among different disability groupings. During the time period of July 26, 1992 through September 30, 2000, benefits rates ranged from 9% to 17%.

The EEOC contracts with state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies (FEPA) to help it process charges. Outcomes of ADA charges also depend on whether an EEOC office or FEPA investigates the charge.

Individuals whose charges were investigated by a FEPA were considerably more likely to receive a benefit from their charge than individuals whose charges were investigated by an EEOC office.

All ADA Charges Filed and Closed as of September 30, 2000

.	Total Cases	Beneficial Outcome	% Beneficial Outcome
EEOC	149,123	18,427	12.4
FEPA	84,346	19,385	23.0

Although individuals whose charges were investigated by a FEPA were more likely to receive a beneficial outcome from their charge, they received considerably lower monetary awards than did individuals whose charges were investigated by the EEOC.

All ADA Charges Filed and Closed as of September 30, 2000

.	Mean Actual Monetary Benefit	Median Actual Monetary Benefit
EEOC	$19,538	$6,000
FEPA	$8,743	$2,500

Conclusion:

Congress passed the ADA with grand promises about the employment of people with disabilities. The findings indicate that the EEOC cannot keep those promises without the resources to reasonably investigate administrative charges.

For those filing claims, it is important to understand how the system works. Your initial presentation is extremely important in order for your charge to be categorized correctly. Also, several other factors such as where you file, your disability, and whether you file with the EEOC or FEPA can affect the outcome of your case.

For more information contact:
Kathryn Moss, Ph.D.,
Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research
725 Airport Road, CB 7590
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
919/ 966-5011
kathryn_moss@unc.edu

ADA Insights, based at the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has been studying the administrative charge process since 1995. The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the National Institute of Mental Health presently funds it.