II.

III.

IV.

Age: 39 years (May 16, 1932)

Birthplace: Chicago (moved to Massachusetts at early age)

Marital Status: Married, three children

COLLEGE EDUCATION:

Boston College (1950-1954):

Received B.S. in Business Administration in 1954.

LEGAL EDUCATION:

(a) Boston College Law School (1954-57):

(b)

Graduated in 1957 with LL.B. degree; honor student; member of the law review for 2 years; first year class president; member of the Board of Governors of the Student Bar Association;

Georgetown University Law Center (1957-58):

Attended evening división and received LL.M.
degree in 1958.

LEGAL EXPERIENCE:

Admitted to practice in Massachusetts in 1957 and in
Illinois in 1961. Member Massachusetts and Chicago
Bar Associations.

(a) Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (June 1957October 1958):

Appointed Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, in June 1957. This appointment was made under the Attorney General's Recruitment Program for Honor Law Graduates. Under this

program about 60 honor law graduates were
selected each year from nearly 1000 applicants.
Assigned major responsibility for obtaining
indictments in national security cases growing
out of Cuban revolution, e.g., United States
v. Carlos Prio, et al. (deposed President of
Cuba conspiring to violate Neutrality Act), and
United States v. Bachman (gun dealer shipping
unregistered sub-machine guns to Cuba).

(b) Justice Department, Chicago, Illinois (October 1958February 1961):

Commissioned Special Attorney in October 1958 (at
age 26) and assigned to Chicago to serve as the
Deputy Chief of the Midwest Office of the Attorney
General's Special Group on Organized Crime.
Served until February 1961 under (Governor)
Richard B. Ogilvie and acted as his chief trial
assistant, e.g., United States v. Anthony J. Accardo
(income tax fraud) and United States v. Joseph Bronge
(perjury case in which the defendant was assassinated
by unknown gunmen prior to his trial). Devised
the legal theory and obtained the indictments in two
leading perjury cases arising out of the Accardo
trial: United States v. Nicoletti and United States
v. Letchos. Assisted in the trial preparation of
United States v. Bonanno, et al. (case involving
the notorious Apalachin, New York crime syndicate
meeting).

(c) Private Practice (February 1961

Present):

Pope, Ballard, Kennedy, Shepard & Fowle. Former hiring
partner and partner in charge of the associate
lawyers. Specialty is major litigation, e.g.,
Dearborn Glass Co. v. Corning Glass Works (success-
fully represented plaintiff in antitrust treble
damage action involving the color television
picture tube industry); Florists' Nationwide
Telephone Delivery Network v. Florists' Telegraph
Delivery Association (successfully represented
defendant in antitrust treble damage action in-
volving the flowers-by-wire industry); Boese, et al.
v. Randolph-Wells Building Corporation and LaSalle
National Bank (successfully represented LaSalle
National Bank in a suit involving the fiduciary
obligations of banks acting as indenture trustees).
Presently the partner jointly responsible (with
Donald Page Moore) for all firm fraud litigation

v.

(a)

on behalf of Federal Savings And Loan Insurance
Corporation (a government agency) arising out of
the liquidation of defunct savings and loan associa-
tions in the Chicago area, e.g., Federal Savings And
Loan Insurance Corporation v. William Szarabajka,
Joseph Nowak, et al. (the fraud and conspiracy
complaint alleged a $93,000 cash bribe to induce
the granting of a $3,100,000 construction loan by
Service Savings And Loan Association); Federal
Savings And Loan Insurance Corporation v. Paul Newber
Sam Mercurio and James B. Wilson, (alleged use of
insured funds to obtain personal loans Service
Savings And Loan Association); Federal Savings And
Loan Insurance Corporation v. Henry Krueger, William
Randall, et al. (the complaint alleges fraud and
conspiracy in the granting of more than $10,000,000
in construction loans by Lawn Savings and Loan
Association); Federal Savings And Loan Insurance
Corporation v. Edward Kelly, et al. (fraud and
conspiracy complaint involving the collapse of
Apollo Savings).

Teaching Experience (1960-65):

Part-time member of the faculty of Loyola University
Law School; taught equity course.

(b)

Member of the Evanston Human Relations Commission,
1967 through 1969. Only member of five appointed
during 1967 to receive the unanimous approval of
the Evanston City Council. Drafted the new rules
for the Commission when it was reorganized during
1968. Member of the Evanston Fair Housing Review
Board 1967-1968.

Political:

Member of the United Republican Fund 500 Club from
its inception to present; Vice-President Evanston
Republican Club - 1963 to 1971; Ward Chairman,
1963-68, and precinct captain, 1963 to 1971;
for the Evanston Regular Republican Organization;
member of the Evanston Young Republican Club, 1962
to present (political affairs Vice-President 1963-64)
Evanston Campaign Co-Chairman for Charles H. Percy,
1964; 13th Congressional District Campaign Chairman
for Richard B. Ogilvie, 1962.

1

(Excerpt from Public Law 92-261-Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) Sec. 8(e) (1) ***

"(b) (1) There shall be a General Counsel of the Commission appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of four years. The General Counsel shall have responsibility for the conduct of litigation as provided in sections 706 and 707 of this title. The General Counsel shall have such other duties as the Commission may prescribe or as may be provided by law and shall concur with the Chairman of the Commission on the appointment and supervision of regional attorneys. The General Counsel of the Commission on the effective date of this Act shall continue in such position and perform the functions specified in this subsection until a successor is appointed and qualified.

"(2) Attorneys appointed under this section may, at the direction of the Commission, appear for and represent the Commission in any case in court, provided that the Attorney General shall conduct all litigation to which the Commission is a party in the Supreme Court pursuant to this title."

(The complete text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended through March 24, 1972, appears as an appendix to this hearing.)

The CHAIRMAN. We are pleased to have our colleague, Senator Percy, here to introduce Mr. Carey to the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES H. PERCY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that this nomination is not as controversial as another one that has been conducted in the room for the past several months.

I am very pleased by the President's nomination of William A. Carey to be General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Mr. Carey, whom I have known for many years, is an outstanding attorney in Illinois, with 10 years of experience in trial and appellate work with a major law firm. His previous experience with the Department of Justice both in Washington and Chicago further qualifies him for this appointment.

Of special interest to those of us who are deeply concerned about equal opportunity in American live is his background as a member of the Evanston, Ill., Human Relations Commission and the Evanston Fair Housing Review Board. In these roles he made constructive contributions to the advancement of justice in that city.

I can say that of all the cities I know in Illinois, Evanston has best handled the problem of equal opportunity in housing and education. It has a totally integrated school system of the best possible type. I think it is simply due to the outstanding citizens who are residents who have given their time to make certain their own city is a model. I think for that reason, in addition to his fine legal background and training, it is a great privilege to have this opportunity to present Mr. Carey to the committee this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Percy.
Senator PERCY. If I may be excused, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you have a statement, Mr. Carey, that you would like to make?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. CAREY, NOMINATED TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Mr. CAREY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to thank Senator Percy for those flattering remarks and for taking time from his busy schedule to be here to introduce me. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, it is an honor for me to be here this morning. I am particularly grateful to President Nixon for nominating me to be the first Presidentially appointed General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

With the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (amending title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) by a wide margin, Congress has issued a clear mandate to the EEOC to attempt to bring to an end all forms of employment discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. To help achieve this end, Congress has armed the Commission with the power to seek the aid of our Federal courts, with their broad remedial powers, to both deter those who violate the act and to redress the injuries done by such violations. I recognize that this new power to bring civil actions in the Federal courts must be exercised fairly and even-handedly; but I also recognize and believe that a true commitment to human rights requires that it be exercised vigorously.

I am also aware that employment discrimination may often be more subtle than direct; and I am also fully aware of the pervasive, albeit sometimes unintentioned, discrimination against women. My point is that the resources of the Commission must be used to combat every form of invidious employment discrimination.

I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee, that if confirmed as General Counsel I shall strive by every honorable means at my disposal to make the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that which you so sincerely want it to be: the bulwark in the fight against employment discrimination in this

country.

That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to respond to any questions the committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. I certainly appreciate your statement. It is a fine statement and you stated it with great conviction.

I think you will certainly agree that the Commission itself should be a model in terms of its employment practices in this area of discrimination.

Mr. CAREY. I would agree to that.

The CHAIRMAN. If any discrimination gets notoriety, the greatest amount of attention would be given here. It has been recently, has it not? Was there not a case recently where there was a claim of discrimination within the Commission?

Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am sure within your authority, this would not be a problem-discrimination within the Commission.

Mr. CAREY. I certainly hope not. I cannot imagine it would be any problem at all. Certainly, we must be holier than the employers.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you, have you had time to think through in your mind the organization of the Commission needed to meet the new enforcement responsibilities, and do you see any restructuring of the Commission?