A #A2/A5 p.c The The Employment Standards Administration had a budget of $2,537,000 for ADEA enforcement activities in FY 1977. estimated budget for FY 1978, which is currently under Congressional consideration, is $2,936,000--approximately a $400,000 increase over last year. As part of the 1979 budget process, we are carefully reviewing our activities so as to most effectively utilize any increase in resources. Our activities in enforcing the ADEA since 1967 have also given us a greater understanding of some of the problems involved in its enforcement. A major problem under the ADEA at present is the fact that approximately half of all private suits initiated by individuals under the Act are thrown out of court, because of procedural requirements in the Act, before the actual merits of age discrimination complaints can be considered. Because of this problem, Secretary Marshall has asked the Congress for two specific amendments to the ADEA. The first amendment involves the process of conciliation under the ADEA, which provides that the Department will attempt to achieve voluntary compliance through conciliation before instituting suit. Such suits are subject to the same statute of limitations applicable to suits brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, the conciliation process does not toll the operation of the statute of limitations as it does in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The result is that employers have no incentive to engage in prompt or serious conciliation. Every day in conciliation means a diminution in any relief which the employer may ultimately be required to provide. The conciliation process would be greatly enhanced if the Act were amended to provide, as was done in Title VII, for the tolling of the statute of limitations during the conciliation process. The need for the other amendment arises because of procedural time limits imposed in private suits which are not imposed on suits brought by the Secretary. This problem concerns the filing of notice of intent to sue which an employee must file with the Secretary prior to instituting a private court action. The ADEA, although providing for a two- and three-year statute of limitations, contemplates that this notice will be filed within 180 days of the asserted violation. A number of courts have construed this notice requirement as a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. This interpretation has frustrated achievement of the purposes of the ADEA in a significant number of cases. Although this A #A2/A5 p.d issue is now before the Supreme Court, it is our view that an amendment deleting the time limits on the notice requirement would materially advance the purposes of the ADEA and would refocus litigation from procedural matters to the substantive merits of each case. The end result of these amendments would be a stronger enforcement effort that brings relief to a substantially greater number of age discrimination victims. The Senate incorporated the substance of these amendments into the version of H.R. 5383 which it passed on October 19, 1977 (see answer to question A3, below). Enclosed for your further information is a copy of the Department of Labor's 1977 annual report to the Congress on activities under the ADEA in 1976. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON January 19, 1977 THE HONORABLE THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE THE HONORABLE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Gentlemen: I have the honor to present herewith the January 1977 report pertaining to activities in connection with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as required by Section 13 of the statute. |