Page images



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.

[ocr errors]


(a) Civic:


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.


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.


(Excerpt from Public Law 92-261-Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972)

[blocks in formation]

"(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."

[blocks in formation]

(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.


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?


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?

Mr. CAREY. In answer to your first question, Senator, I thought through generally the structure, restructuring that might be involved. Basically this is an internal matter for the Commission and unless and until I am confirmed I would not be privy to what is going on within the Commission.

But I have given some thought to the problems which the enforcement powers present.

My basic feeling is that more and more of the responsibility has to be out in the field and that the Commission needs many, many new lawyers because after all, it is not only a litigating commission-it needs a lot of lawyers, a lot of money, lest it be criticized for not doing that which Congress wants it to do.

The CHAIRMAN. As I recall, the legislation provides for concurrence in the approving of regional attorneys. Is that your understanding? Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that true, too, in the selection of lawyers, to work in the regions? That is your responsibility?

Mr. CAREY. I believe the act speaks only of regional attorneys. I would foresee no difficulty whatsoever in reaching concurrence with Chairman Brown on the selection of regional attorneys or staff attorneys.

The CHAIRMAN. Your personal background concerned with discrimination is expressed in your hometown of Evanston?

Mr. CAREY. Yes, Evanston.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your activity at the community level? Mr. CAREY. I was a member of the first Evanston Community Relations Commission in its early days, and later it was reorganized and I was a member of the human relations commission.

I drafted the human relations commission bylaws. I was responsible in large measure for the passage of what was considered to be at the time the strongest fair housing act in the State, if not in the country. I tried to act as a mediator between those who felt that human rights progress was going too slow and those who thought it was going too fast.

My position as a mediator was, let's just move human rights along. I was active in obtaining from the city council funds to operate the commission, since it was an arm of Evanston. I fought hard for funds for a black executive director and funds for a new position-for a position as an assistant to the executive director. In those efforts I was happily successful.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. Well, Mr. Carey has been in to see me and I have had quite an interesting talk with him before his testimony and I am very impressed with him, Mr. Chairman. He is a man who has the capacity to do this job.

Mr. Carey, do you foresee any difficulty in the recruitment of the necessary personnel on the regional or the Washington level?

Mr. CAREY. No, sir; I understand already there are hundreds, if not at least a thousand applicants for positions as attorneys for the Commission, and I would anticipate that for graduating law students legal work for the Commission would be among the most attractive areas of government.

80-501 0-72- -2

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Carey, we cannot of course hold you accountable for anything beyond your own capacity to do this job, but in your work, in finding out what the facts are, you are aware that the Commission received its authority to institute suits just a few months ago, right.

Mr. CAREY. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. Have you inquired as to how many suits they filed since?

Mr. CAREY. Well, I have not inquired, but I do know how many. I understand that two suits, major suits, have been filed, and there has been temporary injunctive relief yet obtained in a third suit.

Senator JAVITS. Do you have any idea how many cases they have which are ready for instituting suit or which are under review by the General Counsel?

Mr. CAREY. No, sir.

Senator JAVITS. You have no idea. Do you know whether it is a big backlog, a small backlog, or what?

Mr. CAREY. I think it is common knowledge that there is a big backlog.

Senator JAVITS. Is there anything you could tell us from before you are on the job in a sense, and it would be perhaps a little less tied into the hierarchy in the agency, as to whether your researches have shown. where the problem is, where the holdups are, if any?

Mr. CAREY. May I regress just a second to the question on backlog? There is a big backlog, but I suspect, although I have no inside information, that the size of the backlog is due to the fact that each individual complaint is given a separate number, for example, and there may be a number of complaints against one employer which really would end up to be one case.

The size of the backlog is probably a lot less than the figures might indicate. How to handle the backlog, what the plans of the Commission are for that, this is a matter of internal workings of the Commission, which I am not privy to.

Senator JAVITS. As yet.

Mr. CAREY. As yet. I hope to be.

Senator JAVITS. I hope you will, too.

You spoke of much money being required. It is a fact, is it not, that the Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended almost a doubling of the budget? Is that correct? You are aware of that? Mr. CAREY. I am aware-I don't know whether the budget has been doubled. I am aware that members of the Commission are happy that quite a bit of additional money has been earmarked by the Senate.

I would think that this is one area where we ought not to skimp. We need a lot of lawyers and a lot of money. But I do understand there has been a substantial increase recommended by the Senate.

Senator JAVITS. Now, could you give us or have you thought through so you could give us-any guideline which you would use in determining, as General Counsel, what cases you would want to see instituted?

You are not as autonomous in this job as the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. But you do have more authority than just a lawyer retained by an agency. So it is important for us to have some idea, if you have one, as to how you would look at cases

« PreviousContinue »