Office of Equal Opportunity Governmental Center Annex 115 S. Andrews Avenue, Room A-680 Fort Lauderdale, Florida FAX

Transcription

1

2 Office of Equal Opportunity Governmental Center Annex 115 S. Andrews Avenue, Room A-680 Fort Lauderdale, Florida FAX DATE: January 2, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: Mayor and Members, Board of County Commissioners Bertha Henry, Interim County Administrator Gwendolyn C. Warren, Director Office of Equal Opportunity SUBJECT: Broward County Work Sharing Agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Miami District Office, Response to Review by County Auditor This memorandum is in response to the review conducted by the Office of the County Auditor, for Board approval of the County s annual work sharing agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner (EEOC). As reflected in the Auditor s Report, Broward County has the second highest number of employment discrimination cases filed in the state, preceded only by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Further, the County s Human Rights Act incorporates federal law which creates a County obligation to investigate allegations of federal discrimination as well as non-federal violations. The Auditor s Report suggests that there is a net cost to the County excluding capital, facility or indirect costs of approximately $688,665 for processing discrimination cases involving violations of federal law. Second, the Auditor proposes the following for the Board s consideration: continue the existing agreement as-is; refer federal complaints to federal agencies thereby excluding such charges from the Human Rights Ordinance; or take steps to reduce the gap between the federal reimbursement rate and the County s costs. Staff Recommendations In summary, staff does not agree with the gap delineated in the Auditor s Report. As reflected herein, staff believes the net cost to the County to be $333,574, excluding capital, facility or indirect costs for FY Further, the Civil Rights Division has negotiated Broward County Board of County Commissioners Josephus Eggelletion, Jr. Sue Gunzburger Kristin D. Jacobs Ken Keechl Ilene Lieberman Stacy Ritter John E. Rodstrom, Jr. Diana Wasserman-Rubin Lois Wexler

3 $412,898 in monetary settlements that inure to the benefit of Broward County residents. Second, staff concurs that there should be continual efforts to streamline processes and identify improvements to the programs, and this report will discuss current and future efforts in that regard. As the Auditor s Report was released before the staff s response was completed, additional information and/or budget clarification will be presented to the Auditor to clarify how staff reached its estimate. Human Rights Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Housing Urban Development The Civil Rights Division has as its founding legislation the Human Rights Act, which presently affords classifications of protection above and beyond those protected under federal law, including marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and age between 18 and 40. The Civil Rights Division investigates employment discrimination complaints under the authority of the Broward County Human Rights Act. Designated as a Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA) since the early 1980s, the County has a contract and work sharing agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate charges of employment discrimination that originate in Broward County on their behalf. EEOC compensates the County for investigations and processing of cases that qualify under both the local ordinance and federal law. Even if Broward County received no payment from EEOC, we would still be required by the Human Rights Act to investigate these cases for all discriminatory classifications protected under the Act. With respect to housing discrimination, the Civil Rights Division investigates housing discrimination under a similar agreement with the US Department of HUD which is also covered under the County s Human Rights Act. In both cases, the County s Human Rights Act preceded work sharing agreements with the federal government. These work sharing agreements are a means of offsetting local contribution to the enforcement of the Human Rights Act. The Auditor suggests that, as an option to filing in person, EEOC complaints can be filed by mail and HUD complaints can be filed on the Internet, by telephone, or by mail. While true, intake procedures often involve complex and emotionally charged situations that are very difficult and not easy to handle via phone. In-person intake procedures allow for an unbiased investigator to assist the person making the complaint by helping to articulate what, if any, discriminatory action has taken place. Further, in many instances, investigations will often require face-to-face interviews. The Report goes on to say that the net cost to the County is $688,665, which staff does not concur with for the following reasons: 2

4 First, as outlined below, the Auditor uses as a base a budget totaling $1,285,583. This amount should be modified to eliminate Internal Investigations and Community Relations, as Internal Investigations is not a part of the Civil Rights Division, and Community Relations was eliminated during the 2008 budget process. These actions would modify the total budget to $1,043, Budget (Civil Rights Division) Section Section Costs (Auditor) Section Costs (Equal Opportunity) Employment $328,814 $328,814 Fair Housing $294,419 $294,419 Intake & Reporting $149,972 $149,972 Administration $270,318 $270,318 Internal Investigations (1) $149,595 $0 Community Relations (2) $92,465 $0 GRAND TOTAL $1,285,583 $1,043,523 Notes: Difference $242,060 (1) Internal Investigations is not part of Civil Rights Division (2) Community Relations section was eliminated as part of Civil Rights Division in Second, the Auditor s Report allocates the full cost of the administration, intake and community relations/outreach sections, pro-rata, to the two investigative sections, employment and housing and creates a third category for non-federal cases. Staff does not believe that allocating Administration and Intake and Reporting as the Auditor outlines is a fair representation of expenses attributable to Employment and Housing for the following: Intake Section The Intake Section performed assessments and referral interviews on 1446 individuals, resulting in 606 actual cases accepted for investigation for housing and employment. This is 42% of all intake and assessment activities. The remaining 58%, by default, are attributable to the Human Rights Act-only assessments. For purposes of this discussion, we assumed 50% vs. the 42% would be allocated, pro rata, to Employment Investigations Section (402 cases/606=66%) and the Housing section (204 cases/606=34%). Administration Section The Human Rights Act establishes a Human Rights Board, a quasi-judicial board empowered by the Board of County Commissioners to receive charges and complaints alleging discriminatory practice, seek to conciliate, hold hearings in order to determine and adjudicate facts, issue binding orders, act upon charges and complaints alleging violations of the Act. 3

5 The Human Rights Act, through dual-filing, is responsible for providing appeals under the local appeals process for not only the Act-only cases, but for all cases that it investigates, including those dual-filed with the EEOC and HUD programs. As a result, administrative staff costs are not included because the Director and her support staff are engaged in activities supporting the Commission on the Status of Women, the Human Rights Board, and its quasijudicial appeals process, which is not required by the EEOC or HUD. The Chart below summarizes the information it believes to be a fair representation of the net subsidy associated with federal vs. Human Rights Act cases. In addition, the employment section of the Civil Rights Division successfully negotiated $412,898 in monetary settlements. Civil Rights Division, Case Load Breakdown Civil Rights Cases, by Type, FY 2007 Description Number of Cases % Investigative Costs Intake Costs* Total Cost Federal Contract % County Cost % Equal Employment EEOC Cases (Closed and Reimbursed) % $203,865 $30,683 $234,548 $151,077 64% $83,471 36% Employment Cases (Open and Closed) 94 23% $75,627 $11,383 $87,010 $0 0% $87, % Human Rights Actonly Cases (Open and Closed) 61 15% $49,322 $7,425 $56,747 $0 0% $56, % Subtotal - Equal Employment % $328,814 $49,491 $378,305 $151,077 40% $227,228 60% Housing HUD Cases (Reimbursed) % $174,631 $14,972 $189,603 $213, % -$23,713-13% Unreimbursed Housing (Open and Closed) 60 29% $86,594 $7,424 $94,018 $0 0% $94, % Human Rights Actonly Cases 23 11% $33,194 $2,846 $36,040 $0 0% $36, % Subtotal - Housing % $294,419 $25,243 $319,662 $213,316 67% $106,346 33% Grand Total % $623,233 $74,986 $698,219 $364,393 52% $333,574 48% *Intake costs reflect 50% of total costs of intake section, which is pro-rated (not all inquiries become investigations). 4

6 Auditor Recommendations The Office of the County Auditor puts forward three options: to continue the existing agreement as-is, to refer all complaints involving federal law to federal agencies, and to take steps to reduce the gap between the federal reimbursement rate and the cost of cases processed by the Civil Rights Division. As stated in the summary, staff readily accepts the challenge of reducing the subsidy to the extent feasible given the Human Rights Act-Only cases. Benchmarking and performance measurement improvements are required for all County agencies for the next budget cycle. The Civil Rights Division has already experienced improved performance, including completing more cases in under 180 days (the Human Rights Act and EEOC timeline for case processing), and a decrease in the average number of days to close housing cases. There have also been increases in the number of cause findings and associated monetary settlements. Additional work in the area of performance enhancement will continue this positive trend. See comparison below: FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total Assessments and Referrals NA Total Investigations Percent EEOC Cases completed in 180 Days 63% 52% 91% Average Number of Days to Process HUD Case Monetary Settlements $210,692 $353,096 $412,898 With regard to the County Auditor s second recommendation to refer complaints under federal law to the federal government for processing, the issue is more complex than this would appear to indicate. There are reasons for having a local Human Rights Act, beyond affording protections to classifications not protected by the federal government. The additional hearing and review power of the quasi-judicial board provides service beyond that guaranteed by the federal government, for all protected classifications. Notwithstanding the savings, deferring all federally protected classifications to the federal government for investigation, while continuing to locally investigate non-federally-protected classifications, could inadvertently send the wrong message to the community. Further, providing investigative services locally, under the Human Rights Act, allows local access to such services. 5