What Is the Worst Agency in Washington, D.C. Today?

George Leef, Forbes, May 15, 2014


One of them is unquestionably the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose arrogance and hypocrisy recently led to a scalding rebuke from the Sixth Circuit in EEOC v. Kaplan.

But before going into that case, let’s take a look at this agency. It was established in 1965 to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination in employment. That is the law that its famous sponsor, Senator Hubert Humphrey, denied would lead to employment quotas. Responding to criticism of the bill that it might require employers to hire by quotas to avoid running afoul of the law, Humphrey replied,

If the Senator can find in Title VII any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there.

Unfortunately, just as the words of the Constitution have been ignored by people intent upon promoting a big government agenda, so too with the words of the Civil Rights Act. It wasn’t long before the EEOC, filled with zealous people imbued with an egalitarian vision of the labor market and hyped up on the power to sue companies, began to enforce the law in ways that made quota hiring the only safe course.

{snip} If the EEOC bureaucrats just waited for cases where there was evidence of overt discrimination against applicants due to race or gender, they’d have precious little to do.

Therefore, they came up with “disparate impact” theory. Under that theory, they can sue employers whenever they believe that some hiring standard or employment practice has more impact on a “protected” minority group than on everyone else. Using “disparate impact” theories, the EEOC has sued many companies on the flimsiest of grounds. If the EEOC wins (and it often does because many firms choose to settle rather than fight a federal agency with inexhaustible resources), the bureaucrats get to crow about their apparent success and importance. And when it loses, that is no skin off the noses of the bureaucrats and the case is soon forgotten.

In Kaplan, the EEOC charged the company with a violation of the law because it used credit checks in evaluating applicants for certain positions. Can’t a company try to screen out people who have bad credit history for jobs where the access to money might prove to be too much of a temptation? Not if it creates a “disparate impact” on minorities said the EEOC.

One problem for the EEOC, however, was that the outside firms Kaplan used to do the credit checks never asked the applicants about their race.

So, to find some reason for pushing its case, the EEOC contracted with an “expert,” Kevin Murphy. Murphy then hired five individuals who, based on drivers license photos obtained from state agencies, declared what they thought each applicant’s race was.


Based on such “race rating,” the EEOC declared that Kaplan’s color-blind policy of trying to avoid hiring individuals who might be wrong for a job dealing with money was illegal because it appeared to rule out disproportionately more minorities.

Does that sound like a sensible use of tax dollars? Or does it sound like a government agency wasting money while looking for an excuse to sue?

Instead of caving in, as companies often do when confronted by the EEOC, Kaplan fought the complaint. The district court judge who heard the arguments agreed that the EEOC’s case was without merit and dismissed it. Its lawyers having nothing better to do, the Commission appealed to the Sixth Circuit. That proved to be a gigantic blunder.

The three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling and its opinion, authored by Judge Raymond Kethledge, excoriated the EEOC.

He noted the hypocrisy of the EEOC’s position, writing, “In this case the EEOC sued the defendants for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses . . . [T]he EEOC runs credit checks on applicants for 84 of the agency’s 97 positions . . . For that practice, the EEOC sued Kaplan.”

Judge Kethledge also blasted the EEOC’s “homemade methodology” for detecting racial impact. (In an earlier case, another federal judge had called Murphy’s approach “laughable” but that did not deter the agency from trying the same stunt again.)


Lawyer Hans von Spakovsky, writing a Heritage Foundation issue brief about this case and the EEOC’s entire approach, stated, “The EEOC’s lawsuits are based on an untenable and dubious legal theory that puts the public and employers at risk from the criminal conduct of employees. The EEOC outlined its legal theory in a 2012 ‘Enforcement Guidance” for employers, which claims that criminal background checks . . . qualify as actions that have a ‘disparate impact’ on non-white job applicants. The EEOC claims that this violates federal antidiscrimination protections despite the fact that having a criminal record is not listed as a protected basis under the law.”

Sadly, Kaplan is not an outlier. Most of the EEOC’s cases are like it. The commission’s bureaucrats strain to find reasons to issue complaints. Would you believe that it has gone after a trucking company for trying to keep out drivers with a history of alcohol abuse?


Market competition for capable workers has pretty much exterminated real employment discrimination. The EEOC is a costly (budget of around $370 million annually) bureaucracy that is worse than useless.

If the U.S. ever gets over its infatuation with bureaucratic “solutions” for all real and imaginary problems, the EEOC should be among the first agencies to be dumped.


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Hubert Humphrey’s quote:

    If the Senator can find in Title VII any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there.

    Even though quotas are what eventually happened, or the soft quotas of quasi- or actually mandated affirmative action, HHH could get out of having to eat the paper the legislation is printed on, based on a technicality. That’s because he slyly used the words “in Title VII any language.” That means while the bill didn’t have quotas in the direct legislative language, the nature of the legislation was such that enforcing the spirit of the legislation would have been impossible without either hard quotas, affirmative action and/or the disparate impact doctrine.

    Likewise, it’s the same deal over what I’ve been saying about “ban the box” proposals. The real end game is affirmative action for ex-cons, it inevitably leads to that.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Reparations in action. Trillions of dollars it’s been!

    • Pro_Whitey

      Humphrey on quotas was like Ted Kennedy on the 1965 immigration act not changing our country’s demographic makeup.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Exactly. One duped fool after another.

        Multiple secessions are the only answer now.

    • TruthBeTold

      They can make any claim they want because it takes time for the damage to accumulate.

      By the time they’re proven liars they’re either out of office or dead.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      HHH: “If the Senator can find in Title VII any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there.”

      That’s funny, Attorney Blumrosen of the EEOC sure found that language when SCOTUS enacted the quota bill of 1971, also known as: Griggs v. Duke Power.

      And how many other SCOTUS cases since. Baloney!

  • JSS

    What agency is the worst? Why do we need to nit pick exactly? The whole apparatus is the biggest force for evil in the world today. You can’t look under a rock without finding the U.S. government promoting GLBT garbage, undermining other country’s national sovereignty, blowing up dirt farmers in the middle east while importing them in the name of diversity, shipping our jobs to China and Pakistan, destroying our families, refusing to secure our borders, it really never ends. The whole thing needs to be flushed down the toilet.

    • connorhus

      I was just gonna say “all of em” but you beat me to it.

    • bilderbuster

      With a charge of TNT as a chaser.

  • So CAL Snowman

    Mother nature has a disparate impact on black people.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      God is racist.

      Oh wait – God be rayciss. Ebonics.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        That’s why the EEOC/OFCCP people follow the teachings of the Koran instead.

        (Paraphrasing) ‘Lying to your enemy is not only acceptable–it is required’.

        It reminds me of the news interview in Afghanistan of a Special Forces soldier who had several tours to his credit. He said:

        “Yeah, they tell me there’s an honest man somewhere in this country, but I haven’t found him yet”.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          (Paraphrasing) ‘Lying to your enemy is not only acceptable–it is required’.

          Which I respect on a certain level, in that I, as a White man living here and now, I am forced into precisely the same predicament.
          Yes, a refreshing honest mendacity I can respect, as opposed to the mendacious honesty of our messianic democratic totalitarians. The Muslims understand the concept of “enemy”, it seems.

          Reminds me of the night in college I drank 48 beers and got into a fight with this fella who’d knocked out a few teeth of my high school best friend over some girl. About my size, guy had a reputation as a scrapper with a mean right.

          We circled a bit trading insults, but when it looked like he was going to back down, I poked my chin out and offered to let him have the first shot. When he pulled back to give me a haymaker, however, leaving himself completely open, I moved in and brutalized him.

          Got to know him later, not such a bad guy, actually.

          But that’s how you treat an enemy. You just got to know who your enemy is…

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Any hetero, white male is the enemy of the ‘…minority occupation government…’ That is Peter Brimelow’s term. It doesn’t go far enough, though. It doesn’t cover the feminists and LGBTQ types who are also government demographic hires–turned ingrates.

            It’s really the Grievance Industry Occupation Government.

    • connorhus

      That was a classic statement.

  • I’m voting for HUD as the most destructive. It also costs 130 times more than EEOC, with an annual budget of 48.5 billion (in fiscal year 2011). These are the fun people who brought us tax-funded Section 8 housing for ghetto rats in what had originally been nice neighborhoods.

    • connorhus

      HUD is even worse because like education they force local governments to match a lot of the funds they spend. You could almost double what they claim as expenditures.

    • borogirl54

      But in order for Section 8 to work, you have landlords willing to rent to low income tenants. I have heard many landlords claim that Section 8 is a good deal for them because the government pays them monthly like clockwork and they can collect the rest due from the tenant. That attitude will change when one of these tenants trashes their house when they are evicted or move out.

      • Bingo! S-8 renters utterly destroyed the inside of the townhouse across the lawn from mine. Two “roll-off” dumpsters were needed for the debris,which included all of the carpet, all of the vinyl flooring, all of the kitchen and laundry appliances, most of the sheetrock, at least one toilet (how does one break a toilet?) several doors, the bathroom vanities, etc. It is still a rental, but now a nice retired couple live there.

      • TruthBeTold

        We had a large apparently complex in my (formerly) white neighborhood. The tenants were white and the building was just any building in the background. It was just there, you never noticed it.

        It was sold and became a black-Hispanic complex and the changes were dramatic. Broken doors, broken windows, screens pushed out and flapping in the wind, broken appliances left around the property.

        Blacks used to congregate just like whites never did. I used to refer to it as ‘little Zimbabwe’. They used to bring any and all kinds of chairs to sit outside. Desk chairs and easy chairs. They didn’t even take them in when it rained. Then they just brought out more chairs.

        One weekend they even set up shop with suits on a racks.

        I remember walking by while the traffic light was red. A white woman in her car was staring with her mouth open.

        • Juggernaut3000

          A landlord I know told me Section 8 tenants often throw trash down the toilet and then try to flush it even though he told them repeatedly not to put garbage or food in the toilets or sinks. The toilet would then overflow all over the apartment, ruining the floors and carpets. He said this happened all the time and that’s why he got out. The second he fixed something, they’d break it because they didn’t care. They’d also use the stairwells as toilets and thought nothing of it. He couldn’t understand how people could trash their living space and turn it into a toxic dump. It was always the landlord’s fault.

          • bilderbuster

            I knew a shady non White (half Jewish, half South American Indian) slumlord once who was always crying about how his section 8 tenants were always late or he had to evict them because they never wanted to cough up their part of the rent.
            He told me once the fire dept. had to put out a fire to keep one of his units from burning down.
            The Black residents had tried to BBQ ribs in the bathtub.

          • The 1994 Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate in Missouri was a black by the name of Alan Wheat. He held what turned out to be his defeat party at a hotel in Kansas City. Later on that night, the fire department was called to put out a fire in the bathtub of one of the rooms that Wheat’s campaign was renting.

          • bilderbuster

            This may be a common practice of theirs that isn’t well known about in the “White Community”.

        • Andy

          “One weekend they even set up shop with suits on a racks.”

          They had a tag sale? Or am I misunderstanding?

          • TruthBeTold

            It was a lawn/garage sale (though there was no lawn and no garage); just the concrete pavement of the apartment complex.

            They were selling other stuff as well but the suits were something I’ve never seen before which is why they stood out.

            They had a rack, like you find in a department store, with mens dress suits.

            It wasn’t just one or two. It was a rack full.

            Here’s a photo of the building. The sale was held by the green door. The building changed management and isn’t a problem anymore; much cleaner and nicer.

          • bilderbuster

            In Miami the Latinos have houses like that where every room is filled with high end stolen suits.
            A few years back the Latino city commissioners, city attorneys and cops were all shopping at one that was busted.
            Of course they played stupid and claimed they didn’t know that the $3000 suits they were buying for $200 were stolen and that house/stores were common to their Latin culture and didn’t think it unusual at all to shop at one.
            Of course only the Cuban crook running the house got in trouble.

      • Juggernaut3000

        Many new or refurbished apartment or condo complexes are mandated to have set asides for Section 8. That’s why it’s always important to look around carefully at where you’re living, Section 8 denizens are usually easy to spot.
        One building near me had the mandated set aside and within a year, the Section 8 tenants had driven the “regular” tenants out due to loud music and slovenly ways (throwing trash in the commons area and on the lawns). Soon, the apartment building was entirely Section 8, but I think that was the plan all along.

        • I drove our S-8s out with my policy of Total Hostility. It was exhausting, but utterly worthwhile.

    • TruthBeTold

      Let’s just say any agency that’s focused on minority uplift is a guaranteed money loser as well as a guaranteed failure.

  • dam, that is a tough one. do we have to pick one….

  • connorhus

    Some great examples here. I would add Dept. Of Education and Dept. of Women’s (only) health and don’t forget Homeland Security (all under that umbrella) BLM/EPA (and their ilk), and Dept. of Energy.

  • borogirl54

    My late husband and I worked for the federal government. When an EEOC claim was filed by an employee for whatever reason, they would come and question just about any employee they could find to make sure that any potential claims would be filed. It was hard to get rid of them.

    • We had some feds come to work in 1993 to ask about a disability claim by one of my co-workers. I not only refused to answer any of their questions, I didn’t even tell them who I was. For all they knew, I didn’t speak English.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      This guy covered the EEOC/OFCCP corruption machine pretty well at his site:


  • I used to teach in Economics 101 that empire building is the norm in government. The mission always expands. In DC, the types who would work for EEOC are anti-white and anti-male to begin with. That gives them a zealots fire in the belly, the law be damned. The only thing surprising is that the Court took them to task.

    Once in a while they let us win one so that we maintain some faith in the System. Don’t believe for a second that the govenment is going to be reined in. The decision is a psy op.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    What federal agency isn’t a black hole sucking up massive amounts of money and rife with corruption, fraud and ineptitude?

    They have made been created with good intentions but end up becoming self-serving, self-perpetuating, ever-expanding tin pot dictatorships beholden to no one.

    My nominee is the anti-white criminal DOJ headed by a pathetic black racist who should sitting in a federal pen.

    • bilderbuster

      I’ve always been of the opinion that if the DOJ were swept clean from top to bottom and replaced by aggressive White conservatives then all of the rest of the government departments and agencies would shape up rather quickly.

  • Bob Varkin

    Congress/Senate with over 40 Dual Israelis sworn with oath to another country ahead of our own is just scary, and when you see them considering AIPAC Israeli supporting laws like allowing Israel to decide when to send Americans into war without our having any veto in it certainly should tell who is realy in control and destroying our country with mass illegal immigration, outsourcing, and FED robbery of American savings.

  • JohnEngelman

    Employment decisions are personal. Bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, people who will get along with co-workers, and people who will be liked by customers of the company.

  • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

    Interesting. All these comments, all these votes for which government agency is the worst. And so far I don’t think I’ve seen one mention of the utterly lawless, incurably corrupt, life destroying parasites who feed the entire beast: Internal Revenue Service.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      I miss my Ruffed Grouse hunting days as a kid.
      Me and my trusty Ithaca Featherlight pump.
      In New England they’re called “partridge”.
      Ahh the good ole days.

  • Juggernaut3000

    I can’t think of a single one that I wouldn’t consider “the worst,” they’re all equally bad.

    But if I had to choose, it would be the Office of the President.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    If I were the new President in January of 2017 I would shutter the EEOC and OFCCP in the first 100 hours of my presidency–and consider it my greatest achievement for the next 8 years. They are domestic terrorists.

    In the first 100 days I would purge the DOJ, DOL, EPA, IRS, etc. This is the hate speech Eric Holder has carried around in his wallet since 1971:

    “Blackness is another issue entirely apart from class in America. No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more particularly than anything else. Black people have a common cause that requires attending to, and this cause does not allow for the rigid class separation that is the luxury of American whites. There is a sense in which every black man is as far from liberation as the weakest one if his weakness is attributable to racial injustice.”

    He should be removed for that reason alone. He lied under oath.


  • none of your business

    As for the Heritage Foundation and the rest of the conservatives and republicans, all I can say is too little too late. Where was the Heritage Foundation when Presidents Nixon and Reagan were implementing discrimination against Whites by the EEOC? Reagan could have eliminated the EEOC by executive order. Instead he appointed Clarence Thomas head of the EEOC. Thomas used the EEOC to eliminate the basic literacy exam that black college grads had previously failed. Eliminating that exam opened the floodgates for the black women with BA’s to overwhelm federal employment. I know that nation wide the black percentage is supposedly only 17 percent, but that figure counts many all White areas. Go to DC, NYC, Chicago, Cleveland, ST. Louis, Los Angeles,San Francisco, Denver and Omaha and you will see the federal building is full of nothing but blacks, mostly women.
    The conservatives have done absolutely nothing for Whites since Brown vs Topeka.

  • none of your business

    “Employment decisions are personal. Bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, people who will get along with co-workers, and people who will be liked by customers of the company”

    I believe this is the absolute epitome of englemann’s idiocy. First and foremost the criteria is can the employee do the work? Bosses don’t give a rat’s a$$ if they enjoy being with their employees. Do electrical contractors hire their buddies from the golf club or Moose Lodge? No, they hire electricians. Many employees have nothing to do with the customers. Do slaughter house and food processing employees have anything to do with customers? Sales clerks and many employees have contact with customers but many do not.

    If bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, then why does every
    White restaurant owner in California hire nothing but Central American indians straight from the jungle who don’t even speak Spanish?

    You must be about 80 years old englemann. Surely you have noticed that in the last 50 years affirmative action has imposed all sorts of nasty people in every workplace and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

  • none of your business

    Hubert Humphrey’s main cause from the day he got into politics was “save the blacks from themselves” It was interesting because Minnesota in the 40’s and 50’s had basically no blacks not even ones brought in for factory work during WW2. i always believed that he was recruited early on by the ADL AJC NAACP crew to be a White Messiah for the blacks. There’s a great quote from LBJ when HH was Vice president and pushing for civil rights. “Ain’t got many n*****s back home do you?

  • Apartheid_DC

    The obvious answer are the agencies of the Government of the District of Columbia…all of them.