Petroleum seep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturally occurring oil seep near McKittrick, California, United States.

 

Petroleum seep near the Korňa in northern Slovakia.

 

Tar "volcano" in the Carpinteria, California asphalt mine. Oil exudes from joint cracks in the petroliferous shale forming the floor of mine. 1906 photo, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 321

 

Tar bubble at La Brea Tar Pits, California

 

A petroleum seep is a place where natural liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons escape to the earth's atmosphere and surface, normally under low pressure or flow. Seeps generally occur above either terrestrial or offshore petroleum accumulation structures. The hydrocarbons may escape along geological layers, or across them through fractures and fissures in the rock, or directly from an outcrop of oil-bearing rock. 

Petroleum seeps are quite common in many areas of the world, and have been exploited by mankind since paleolithic times. Natural products associated with these seeps include bitumen, pitch, asphalt and tar. In locations where seeps of natural gas are sufficiently large, natural "eternal flames" often persist. The occurrence of surface petroleum was often included in location names that developed; these locations are also associated with early oil and gas exploitation as well as scientific and technological developments, which have grown into the petroleum industry.

History of petroleum seep exploitation

Prehistory

The exploitation of bituminous rocks and natural seep deposits dates back to paleolithic times. The earliest known use of bitumen (natural asphalt) was by Neanderthals some 70,000 years ago, with bitumen adhered to ancient tools found at Neanderthal sites in Syria.

Ancient civilizations

After the arrival of Homo sapiens, humans used bitumen for construction of buildings and waterproofing of reed boats, among other uses. The use of bitumen for waterproofing and as an adhesive dates at least to the fifth millennium BCE in the early Indus community of Mehrgarh where it was used to line the baskets in which they gathered crops. The material was also used as early as the third millennium BCE in statuary, mortaring brick walls, waterproofing baths and drains, in stair treads, and for shipbuilding. According to Herodotus, more than four thousand years ago natural asphalt was employed in the construction of the walls and towers of Babylon, great quantities of it were found on the banks of the river Issus, one of the tributaries of the Euphrates, and this fact confirmed by Diodorus Siculus. Herodotus mentioned pitch spring on Zacynthus (Ionian islands, Greece). Also, Herodotus described a well for bitumen and oil near Ardericca in Cessia.

In ancient times, bitumen was primarily a Mesopotamian commodity used by the Sumerians and Babylonians, although it was also found in the Levant and Persia. Along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the area was littered with hundreds of pure bitumen seepages. The Mesopotamians used the bitumen for waterproofing boats and buildings. Ancient Persian tablets indicate the medicinal and lighting uses of petroleum in the upper levels of their society. In ancient Egypt, the use of bitumen was important in creating Egyptian mummies — in fact, the word mummy is derived from the Arab word mūmiyyah, which means bitumen. Oil from seeps was exploited in the Roman province of Dacia, now in Romania, where it was called picula. 

In East Asia these locations were known in China, where the earliest known drilled oil wells date to 347 CE or earlier. The ancient records of China and Japan are said to contain many allusions to the use of natural gas for lighting and heating. Petroleum was known as burning water in Japan in the 7th century. In his book Dream Pool Essays written in 1088, the polymathic scientist and statesman Shen Kuo of the Song Dynasty coined the word 石油 (Shíyóu, literally "rock oil") for petroleum, which remains the term used in contemporary Chinese. 

In southwest Asia the first streets of 8th century Baghdad were paved with tar, derived from natural seep fields in the region. In the 9th century, oil fields were exploited in the area around modern Baku, Azerbaijan. These fields were described by the Arab geographer Abu al-Hasan 'Alī al-Mas'ūdī in the 10th century, and by Marco Polo in the 13th century, who described the output of those wells as hundreds of shiploads. Distillation of petroleum was described by the Persian alchemist, Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi (Rhazes). There was production of chemicals such as kerosene in the alembic (al-ambiq), which was mainly used for kerosene lamps. Arab and Persian chemists also distilled crude oil in order to produce flammable products for military purposes. Through Islamic Spain, distillation became available in Western Europe by the 12th century. It has also been present in Romania since the 13th century, being recorded as păcură.

Eighteenth century Europe

In Europe, petroleum seeps were extensively mined near the Alsace city of Pechelbronn, where the vapor separation process was in use in 1742. In Switzerland c. 1710, the Russian-born Swiss physician and Greek teacher Eyrini d'Eyrinis discovered asphaltum at Val-de-Travers, (Neuchâtel). He established a bitumen mine de la Presta there in 1719 that operated until 1986. Oil sands here were mined from 1745 under the direction of Louis Pierre Ancillon de la Sablonnière, by special appointment of Louis XV. The Pechelbronn oil field was active until 1970, and was the birthplace of companies like Antar and Schlumberger. In 1745 under the Empress Elisabeth of Russia the first oil well and refinery were built in Ukhta by Fiodor Priadunov. Through the process of distillation of the "rock oil" (petroleum) he received a kerosene-like substance, which was used in oil lamps by Russian churches and monasteries (though households still relied on candles).

Colonial Americas

The earliest mention of petroleum seeps in the Americas occurs in Sir Walter Raleigh's account of the Pitch Lake on Trinidad in 1595. Thirty-seven years later, the account of a visit of a Franciscan, Joseph de la Roche d'Allion, to the oil springs of New York was published in Sagard's Histoire du Canada. In North America, the early European fur traders found Canadian First Nations using bitumen from the vast Athabasca oil sands to waterproof their birch bark canoes. A Swedish scientist, Peter Kalm, in his 1753 work Travels into North America, showed on a map the oil springs of Pennsylvania.

In 1769 the Portolà expedition, a group of Spanish explorers led by Gaspar de Portolà, made the first written record of the tar pits in California. Father Juan Crespí wrote, "While crossing the basin the scouts reported having seen some geysers of tar issuing from the ground like springs; it boils up molten, and the water runs to one side and the tar to the other. The scouts reported that they had come across many of these springs and had seen large swamps of them, enough, they said, to caulk many vessels. We were not so lucky ourselves as to see these tar geysers, much though we wished it; as it was some distance out of the way we were to take, the Governor [Portola] did not want us to go past them. We christened them Los Volcanes de Brea [the Tar Volcanoes]."

Modern extraction and industry

During the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, oil seepages in Europe were exploited everywhere with the digging, and later drilling, of wells near to their occurrences and the discovery of numerous small oil fields such as in Italy.

The modern history of petroleum exploitation, in relation to extraction from seeps, began in the 19th century with the refining of kerosene from crude oil as early as 1823, and the process of refining kerosene from coal by Nova Scotian Abraham Pineo Gesner in 1846. It was only after Ignacy Łukasiewicz had improved Gesner's method to develop a means of refining kerosene from the more readily available "rock oil" ("petr-oleum") seeps in 1852 that the first rock oil mine was built near Krosno in central European Galicia (Poland/Ukraine) in 1853. In 1854, Benjamin Silliman, a science professor at Yale University, was the first American to fractionate petroleum by distillation. These discoveries rapidly spread around the world. 

The world's first commercial oil well was drilled in Poland in 1853, and the second in nearby Romania in 1857. At around the same time the world's first, but small, oil refineries were opened at Jasło in Poland, with a larger one being opened at Ploiești in Romania shortly after. Romania is the first country in the world to have its crude oil output officially recorded in international statistics, namely 275 tonnes. By the end of the 19th century the Russian Empire, particularly in Azerbaijan, had taken the lead in production.

The first oil "well" in North America was in Oil Springs, Ontario, Canada in 1858, dug by James Miller Williams. The US petroleum industry began with Edwin Drake's drilling of a 69-foot (21 m) oil well in 1859 on Oil Creek near Titusville, Pennsylvania, both named for their petroleum seeps. 

Other sources of oil initially associated with petroleum seeps were discovered in Peru's Zorritos District in 1863, in the Dutch East Indies on Sumatra in 1885, in Persia at Masjed Soleiman in 1908, as well as in Venezuela, Mexico, and the province of Alberta, Canada.

By 1910, these too were being developed at an industrial level. Initially these petroleum sources and products were for use in fueling lamps, but with the development of the internal combustion engine, their supply could not meet the increased demand; many of these early traditional sources and "local finds" were soon outpaced by technology and demand.

Petroleum seep formation

Tar seep at Rozel Point, on the mud (salt) flats of the Great Salt Lake.

 

Re-worked tar on beach at Rozel Point, Utah. The black rocks are basalt: the tar is brown and looks like cow manure.

 

A petroleum seep occurs as a result of the seal above the reservoir being breached, causing tertiary migration of hydrocarbons towards the surface under the influence of the associated buoyancy force. The seal is breached due to the effects of overpressure adding to the buoyancy force, overcoming the capillary resistance that initially kept the hydrocarbons sealed.

Causes of overpressure

The most common cause of overpressure is the rapid loading of fine-grained sediments preventing water from escaping fast enough to equalise the pressure of the overburden. If burial stops or slows, then excess pressure can equalize at a rate that is dependent on the permeability of the overlying and adjacent rocks. A secondary cause of overpressure is fluid expansion, due to changes in the volume of solid and/or fluid phases. Some examples include: aquathermal pressuring (thermal expansion), clay dehydration reactions (such as anhydrite) and mineral transformation (such as kerogen to oil/gas and excess kerogen).

Types of seeps

There are two types of seep that can occur, depending on the degree of overpressure. Capillary failure can occur in moderate overpressure conditions, resulting in widespread but low intensity seepage until the overpressure equalizes and resealing occurs. In some cases, the moderate overpressure cannot be equalized because the pores in the rock are small so the displacement pressure, the pressure required to break the seal, is very high. If the overpressure continues to increase to the point that it overcomes the rock's minimum stress and its tensile strength before overcoming the displacement pressure, then the rock will fracture, causing local and high intensity seepage until the pressure equalizes and the fractures close.

California seeps

Diatomite outcrop containing oil that seeps out in hot weather, near McKittrick, in Kern County California.

 

Oil stained outcrop near Kern River oilfield, in Kern County California.

 

Oil Seep in the Simi Valley area of Ventura County, CA

 

California has several hundred naturally occurring seeps, found in 28 counties across the state. Much of the petroleum discovered in California during the 19th century was from observations of seeps. The world's largest natural oil seepage is Coal Oil Point in the Santa Barbara Channel, California. Three of the better known tar seep locations in California are McKittrick Tar Pits, Carpinteria Tar Pits and the La Brea Tar Pits.

At Kern River Oil Field, there are no currently active seeps. However, oil-stained formations in the outcrops remain from previously active seeps. Petroleum seeps may be a significant source of pollution.

Seeps known as the McKittrick Tar Pits occur in the McKittrick Oil Field in western Kern County. Some of the seeps occur in watersheds that drain toward the San Joaquin Valley floor. These seeps were originally mined for asphalt by Native Americans, and in the 1870s larger scale mining was undertaken by means of both open pits and shafts. In 1893, Southern Pacific Railroad constructed a line to Asphalto, two miles from present day McKittrick. Fuel oil for the railroad was highly desired, especially since there are very few coal-bearing formations in California. The field is produced now by conventional oil wells, as well as by steam fracturing. 

The oil seeps at McKittrick are located in diatomite formation that has been thrust faulted over the younger sandstone formations. Similarly, in the Upper Ojai Valley in Ventura County, tar seeps are aligned with east-west faulting. In the same area, Sulphur Mountain is named for the hydrogen sulfide-laden springs. The oil fields in the Sulphur Mountain area date from the 1870s. Production was from tunnels dug into the face of a cliff, and produced by gravity drainage.

The petroleum fly (Helaeomyia petrolei) is a species of fly that was first described from the La Brea Tar Pits and is found at other California seeps as well. It is highly unusual among insects for its tolerance of crude oil; larvae of this fly live within petroleum seeps where they feed on insects and other arthropods that die after becoming trapped in the oil.

Offshore seeps

In the Gulf of Mexico, there are more than 600 natural oil seeps that leak between one and five million barrels of oil per year, equivalent to roughly 80,000 to 200,000 tonnes. When a petroleum seep forms underwater it may form a peculiar type of volcano known as an asphalt volcano.

The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources published a map of offshore oil seeps from Point Aguello (north of Santa Barbara) to Mexico. In addition, they published a report describing the seeps. The report also discusses the underground blowout at Platform A which caused the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. It also describes accounts from divers, who describe seepage changes after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake.

In Utah, there are natural oil seeps at Rozel Point on the Great Salt Lake. The oil seeps at Rozel Point can be seen when the lake level drops below an elevation of approximately 4,198 feet (1,280 m); if the lake level is higher, the seeps are underwater. The seeps can be found by going to the Golden Spike historical site, and from there, following signs for the Spiral Jetty. Both fresh tar seeps and re-worked tar (tar caught by the waves and thrown up on the rocks) are visible at the site. 

The petroleum seeping at Rozel Point is high in sulfur, but has no hydrogen sulfide. This may be related to deposition in a hypersaline lacustrine environment.

Tax protester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

Legal commentator Daniel B. Evans has defined tax protesters as people who "refuse to pay taxes or file tax returns out of a mistaken belief that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, invalid, voluntary, or otherwise does not apply to them under one of a number of bizarre arguments." (divided into several classes: constitutional, conspiracy, administrative, statutory, and arguments based on 16th Amendment and the "861" section of the tax code. An overview can be found here) Law Professor Allen D. Madison has described tax protesters as "those who refuse to pay income tax on the basis of some nonsensical legal argument that he or she does not owe tax."

An illegal tax-protest scheme has been defined as "any scheme, without basis in law or fact, designed to express dissatisfaction with the tax laws by interfering with their administration or attempting to illegally avoid or reduce tax liabilities." The United States Tax Court has stated that "tax protester" is a designation "often given to persons who make frivolous antitax arguments".

Tax protesters raise a number of different kinds of arguments. In the United States, these typically include constitutional arguments, such as claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not properly ratified or that it is unconstitutional generally, or that being forced to file an income tax return violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Others are statutory arguments suggesting that the income tax is constitutional but the statutes enacting the income tax are ineffective, or that Federal Reserve Notes or other relevant currencies do not constitute cash or income. Yet another collection of arguments centers on general conspiracies involving numerous government agencies.

Some tax protesters refuse to file a tax return or file returns with no income or tax data supplied.

Origin of term

In the United States, the term "protest" as applied to a tax generally means "a declaration by a payer, esp. of a tax, that he does not concede the legality of a claim he is paying". Similarly, Black's Law Dictionary defines a tax protest as:

The formal statement, usually in writing, made by a person who is called upon by public authority to pay a sum of money, in which he declares that he does not concede the legality or justice of the claim or his duty to pay it, or that he disputes the amount demanded; the object being to save his right to recover or reclaim the amount, which right would be lost by his acquiescence. Thus, taxes may be paid under "protest".

At common law, and under some earlier tax statutes, the filing of a protest at the time of payment of an erroneous tax was a requirement in order for the payor to recover a refund of the tax at a later time. In the case of U.S. federal taxes, the rule was abolished by Congress in 1924. Under the current Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the taxpayer's failure to protest does not deprive the taxpayer of the right to file an administrative claim with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a refund and, if the claim is not allowed by the IRS, to sue for a tax refund in Federal district court.

The term "protest" is also used to describe a taxpayer's formal written request for review, by the Appeals Division of the IRS, after the IRS issues a "Thirty-Day Letter" proposing an increased tax liability following an IRS examination of a tax return.

In 1972, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania used the term tax "protestor" (protester) in United States v. Malinowski. This case, however, involved a taxpayer who was a member of the Philadelphia War Tax Resistance League who was protesting the use of tax money in the Vietnam War. The taxpayer was not making arguments that the tax law itself was invalid; he was essentially protesting the war, not the tax. The taxpayer had filed a false Form W-4, and admitted he knew that he was not legally entitled to claim the exemptions (allowances) he claimed on the W-4. Thus, Malinowski might be termed a tax resister rather than a tax protester. He was convicted, and his motion for a new trial or acquittal was denied.

A person could be both a tax protester and a tax resister if he or she believes that tax laws do not apply to him or her and also believes that taxes should not be paid based on the use to which the taxes are put. Some tax resisters have put forth legal arguments for their position—for instance that they cannot pay taxes for nuclear weapons development because this would put them in violation of the Nuremberg Principles—that could be considered varieties of tax-protester theories.

Beginning in the mid-1970s, U.S. Federal courts began using the term "tax protester" in still another, more narrow sense—to describe persons who raised frivolous arguments about the legality of Federal taxes, particularly income taxes. This particular technical sense of the term is the sense described in the remainder of this article.

History

United States

While there have been people throughout history who challenged the assessment of taxes as beyond the power of the government, the modern tax-protester movement began after World War II. One of the first people to fit this description was Vivien Kellems, a Connecticut industrialist and political activist who specifically protested monthly tax withholding. In 1948 she refused to withhold taxes from the wages of her employees, based on the claim that the government had no power to require such withholding. The IRS then seized the money owed from her bank account. She brought suit against them and, in a book she wrote, asserted that she won, although she did not challenge the constitutionality of tax withholding itself. 

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that people are attracted to the "tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax." The court called the tax-protester arguments "wholly defective and unsuccessful." Ideas associated with the tax-protester movement have been forwarded under different names over time. These ideas have been put forth, for example, in the broader Christian Patriot and Posse Comitatus movements, which generally assert that the Constitution has been usurped by the federal government.

The tax-protester phenomenon is not restricted to the United States. Similar arguments are raised in the context of other legal systems in other countries, although it is more notorious in the United States tax system. It has been noted that tax protester theories originating in the United States, such as denying the authority of courts, have spread into Canada. As with cases in the United States, the courts have uniformly found these arguments to be invalid, and often incoherent.

Arguments

In 1986, the Seventh Circuit observed:

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead—so tax protesters think—to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.

Arguments made by tax protesters in the United States generally fall into several categories: that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified; that the Sixteenth Amendment does not permit the taxation of individual income, or particular forms of individual income; that other provisions of the Constitution such as the First, Fifth, or a "Missing Thirteenth Amendment" eliminate an obligation to file a return; that citizens of the states are not also citizens of the United States; that the statutes enacted by the United States Congress pursuant to their constitutional taxing power are defective or invalid; that the tax code does not apply to inhabitants of U.S. territories; and that the government and the courts engage in various conspiracies to conceal the above deficiencies. Outside of the United States, tax protesters raise similar conspiracy arguments, claims that they are not "citizens" under the jurisdiction of the court where the claim is brought, and claims about the validity of statutes imposing taxation.

Such arguments are usually summarily dispensed with when presented in the courts. For example, the Fifth Circuit once noted:

We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system—including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court—has long been established... [Petitioner's argument] is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish.

In that case, the court viewed the tax-protester arguments as sufficiently frivolous to merit the imposition of sanctions—in this case twice the costs spent by the government in defending the litigation—for even bringing them up. Similarly, a Canadian Tax Court judge found claims asserted by a "tax denier" in that court to be "an absurd blend of the ridiculous arguments... unintelligible, incomprehensible, meaningless, irrelevant and factually hopeless".

Penalties

In the United States, protesting Federal income taxes is not, in and of itself, a criminal offense. However, a number of offenses arise from failing to pay taxes that are due, and from repeating arguments that have previously been invalidated by the courts.

Frivolous tax returns

The United States Congress has, however, enacted Internal Revenue Code section 6702 "in an effort to deter tax protesters from filing frivolous returns." This statute was enacted as part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

The penalty under section 6702 is a civil (non-criminal) penalty, and is $500 for positions taken on or before March 15, 2007. For positions taken after that date, the penalty amount has been increased to $5,000. The Internal Revenue Service has issued a list of positions considered to be legally frivolous. Shauna Henline, Senior Technical Coordinator of the Frivolous Return Program at the Internal Revenue Service, has testified that the IRS receives about 20,000 to 30,000 frivolous tax returns per year, and that approximately 100,000 related letters and other documents are received each year.

In some cases, taxpayers have argued that section 6702, the "frivolous argument" penalty statute, is itself unconstitutional. That argument was rejected in Hazewinkel v. United States (taxpayer's arguments—that sections 6702 and 6703 violate both procedural and substantive due process because there is no right to a prior hearing, and that the word "frivolous" is unconstitutionally vague—were rejected). See also Pillsbury v. Commissioner, a case in which taxpayer Leecil Pillsbury's argument—that section 6702 violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause of the Constitution—was ruled to be without merit. 

In that case, the court also ruled the following taxpayer arguments to be invalid: (1) the argument that section 6702 is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder; (2) the argument that section 6702 unconstitutionally authorizes the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment; (3) the argument that section 6702 unconstitutionally violates the doctrine of separation of powers; and (4) the argument that section 6702 unconstitutionally violates the taxpayer's First Amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances. See also Duke v. Commissioner (tax-protester argument that 6702 was unconstitutional was rejected by the court), Kane v. United States (taxpayer's argument—that because section 6702 does not define the term "frivolous," the statute is unconstitutionally vague—was rejected), and Hudson v. United States (taxpayer's arguments—that section 6702 unconstitutionally violates taxpayer's First Amendment rights, that section 6702 violates due process rights by failing to provide a hearing before assessment of a penalty, that section 6702 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and that section 6702 is unconstitutionally vague—were ruled to be without merit).

Frivolous litigation in United States Tax Court, and appeals of Tax Court decisions

In 1939, Congress enacted section 1117(g) (entitled "Proceeding Frivolous") of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, giving the Board of Tax Appeals (now called the United States Tax Court) the power to impose a civil monetary penalty of up to $500 against any party who instituted a proceeding "merely for delay" before the Board of Tax Appeals. In 1954, this provision was continued with the enactment of section 6673 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The current version of section 6673 (in the 1986 Code) provides that frivolous arguments may result in a penalty in U.S. Tax Court of up to $25,000. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Code also provides that the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals may impose penalties where the taxpayer's appeal of a U.S. Tax Court decision was "maintained primarily for delay" or where "the taxpayer's position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless."

Frivolous litigation in United States District Court

In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is deemed to have certified that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law". Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Frivolous litigation in various other appeals

Congress has enacted section 1912 of title 28 of the United States Code providing that in the United States Supreme Court and in the various courts of appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages. A person who raises a frivolous argument in a Federal appeals court may also be subject to monetary penalties under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. In one 2007 case, for example, the Seventh Circuit issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments", based in part on Rule 38.

Frivolous filing of misconduct complaints

The "Guiding Light of God Ministries," a tax protester group organized by Eddie Ray Kahn, filed about 2,000 official misconduct complaints against employees of the IRS. Some tax agents reported that these complaints had influenced their supervisors to order them to back off from audits and collection efforts against members of the group.

Treatment by Internal Revenue Service

Prior to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (the "1998 Act"), the Internal Revenue Service had defined a tax-protester scheme as "any scheme without basis in law or fact for the ostensible purpose of expressing dissatisfaction with the substance, form, or administration of the tax laws be [sic; "by"] either interfering with tax administration or attempting to illegally avoid or reduce tax liabilities."

The IRS has not released records indicating whom the agency defined as "illegal tax protesters" (coded as TC-148). In testimony before Congress in 1997, former IRS historian Shelley L. Davis contended that the IRS kept lists of citizens "for no reason other than that their political activities might have offended someone at the IRS [….]" and she charged that "anyone who offers even legitimate criticism of the tax collector is [labeled by the IRS as] a tax protester […]"

After the 1997 congressional hearings, Congress responded with the 1998 Act. Subsection (a) of section 3707 of the 1998 Act now prohibits "officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service" from designating a taxpayer as an "illegal tax protester" or using any similar designation for a taxpayer. By contrast, subsection (b) of section 3707 provides: "An officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service may designate any appropriate taxpayer as a nonfiler, but shall remove such designation once the taxpayer has filed income tax returns for 2 consecutive taxable years and paid all taxes shown on such returns."

The IRS has prescribed procedures for its personnel to handle frivolous returns (whether considered valid returns or not) in the "Frivolous Return Program" section of the Internal Revenue Manual. The IRS has concluded, in Service Center Advice 200107034 dated November 15, 2000, that the statutory prohibition on the use of the term "illegal tax protester" by IRS personnel does not prohibit the IRS from maintaining a database of frivolous tax return filers as part of its Frivolous Return Program. IRS Advice 200107034 states (in part):

The Frivolous Return Program in Examination [an administrative component of the IRS] has the specific assignment of processing assessments of frivolous return penalties pursuant to [Internal Revenue Code] section 6702. The employees of that unit receive documents from throughout the country that IRS employees believe may qualify as frivolous returns under section 6702. The employees reviews the documents and determines how to proceed.

When the documents come into the Frivolous Return Program, employees enter initial data into a computerized inventory database. […] Initial data includes name, social security number, and tax examiner assigned the case. Later, a tax examiner reviews the documents to see if they qualify as frivolous. If the documents meet the frivolous test, the tax examiner does a compliance check to see if the taxpayer is properly filing returns. If the taxpayer is properly filing returns and is not potentially subject to a frivolous return penalty, then the tax examiner deletes the individual from the database […]

According to the IRS:

[…] Congress enacted section 3707 because of its concern that taxpayers may be stigmatized by a designation as an "illegal tax protester." […] Under section 3707(a)(2), the IRS is required to remove illegal tax-protester designations from its individual master file and disregard any illegal tax-protester designation in a place other than the individual master file in the case of any illegal tax-protesters designation made on or before July 22, 1998, the date of the enactment of section 3707. Although section 3707 prohibits the IRS from designating taxpayers as illegal tax protesters, it does provide that the IRS may designated [sic] any appropriate taxpayer as a nonfiler. However, the nonfiler designation must be removed once the taxpayer has filed income tax returns for two consecutive years and paid all taxes shown on the returns. Section 3707(b).

We conclude […] that Congress was concerned that innocent taxpayers may have been mislabeled as illegal tax protesters. However, Congress did not intend to limit the IRS's ability to maintain records and to make designations, other than the illegal tax-protesters designation, where such designations are appropriate.

As a result of the enactment of sections 3707 [of the 1998 Act] and 6702 [of the Internal Revenue Code], the IRS […] has tried to balance these competing obligations by focusing on the conduct of the taxpayers and specifically identifying those frivolous arguments asserted rather than applying a general label of tax protester.

The Criminal Investigation (CI) division of the Internal Revenue Service investigates reports of violations of the federal criminal tax statutes,^[43] including tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, willful failure to file tax returns or pay tax under 26 U.S.C. § 7203, willful filing of false returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206, and violations of other statutes, and refers tax cases to the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution.

In July 2008, the office of the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration reported that the number of federal criminal tax investigations referred by the Internal Revenue Service to the Justice Department is at an eight-year high. According to the report, the fiscal year 2007 ended with 4,600 investigations. The increase is nearly 50 percent from fiscal year 2002 to year 2007. The report also concluded that federal criminal tax convictions increased by 6.7% from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007. The number of persons convicted in fiscal year 2007 was 2,155.

Treatment by the U.S. Department of Justice

In United States v. Amon in 1981, Alan Amon was convicted of filing a false withholding allowance certificate under 26 U.S.C. § 7205. Rather than having been indicted by a grand jury, Amon had been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a document called an information. He appealed the conviction, in part on the ground that the government's prosecution of him was "unconstitutionally selective." The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit noted that the trial court had agreed that Amon was "selected for prosecution because he is an active and outspoken [tax] protester."

The trial court ruled that Amon's "status as an active protester was insufficient to establish selective prosecution" and that no illegal discrimination occurs where the government prosecutes individuals for actions they take in failing to comply with tax laws where an effect of the prosecution is "...to dissuade others from engaging in that kind of tax protest." The Court of Appeals agreed, stating: "Merely showing that the Government elected, under established IRS directives, to prosecute an individual because he was vocal in opposing voluntary compliance with the federal income tax law, without also establishing that others similarly situated were not prosecuted and that the prosecution was based on racial, religious or other impermissible considerations, does not demonstrate an unconstitutionally selective prosecution."

The Department of Justice may obtain a federal court ruling to the effect that a specific tax-protester activity constitutes the promotion of an illegal tax shelter under Internal Revenue Code section 6700 (26 U.S.C. § 6700), and may obtain a court order prohibiting that activity under 26 U.S.C. § 7408, as it did in the case of United States v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, Inc..^[46] The Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutes violations of the federal criminal tax statutes, generally after an investigation and referral of a case by the Criminal Investigation division of the Internal Revenue Service. See, e.g., subsection (d) of 26 U.S.C. § 7602.

As of February 2008, the Department of Justice was reported to be "planning a crackdown on the so-called tax-protester movement." United States Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hochman, the head of the Tax Division of the Justice Department, stated: "Too many people succumb to the fallacy, the illusion, that you don't have to pay any tax under any set of conditions […] That is a growing problem." According to a Bloomberg News report, the U.S. government has a 97 percent conviction rate in criminal tax denier cases. On April 9, 2008, Hochman announced the launch of the National Tax Defier Initiative, also known as the "TAXDEF Initiative."

Responses

Many United States Courts of Appeals have made blanket statements repudiating tax-protester arguments. For example, see the Seventh Circuit case of United States v. Cheek:

For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered "objectively reasonable" in this circuit:
(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
(3) the belief that the income tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income.

Arguments about constitutionality

The Supreme Court of the United States addressed tax-protester arguments in Cheek v. United States. John L. Cheek, a tax protester, had been prosecuted for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201. In response to Mr. Cheek's arguments on appeal, the Court stated:

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.

The Court continued:

We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

After a remand by the Supreme Court, Mr. Cheek was ultimately convicted, and the conviction was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court refused to hear Mr. Cheek's petition for review of his conviction after the remand, and he was sent to prison.

If a jury finds that a criminal defendant had a subjective good-faith belief due to a misunderstanding based on the complexity of the tax law (and not based on an argument about its constitutionality), that belief may be a defense with respect to the element of willfulness, even if the belief is unreasonable. This is due to the general mens rea requirement needed to hold someone criminally liable and the specific intent (required by the word "willfully" in the statute) as defined in Cheek and other cases (see specific intent crimes). Persons acquitted of criminal tax evasion may still be sued civilly, and may be required to pay the taxes assessed, along with civil penalties.

USA.gov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Type of site	E-government
Available in	English Spanish at USA.gov/espanol
Website	www.usa.gov
Alexa rank	6,252 (April 2014)
Commercial	No
Launched	September 22, 2000; 19 years ago
Current status	Online
Content license	Public domain

USA.gov is the official web portal of the United States federal government. It is designed to improve the public's interaction with the US government by quickly directing website visitors to the services or information they are seeking, and by inviting the public to share ideas to improve government. USA.gov links to every federal agency and to state, local, and tribal governments, and is the most comprehensive site in—and about—the US government. While the primary target audience of USA.gov is the American public, about 25 percent of USA.gov’s visitors come from outside the United States. 

USA.gov is part of the Technology and Transformation Services in the General Services Administration (GSA), and includes the Spanish-language web portal to US government services, USAGOV en Español (formerly GobiernoUSA.gov).

History

USA.gov began in 2000 when Internet entrepreneur Eric Brewer, whose early research in parallel computing was funded by the United States Department of Defense, offered to donate a powerful search engine to the government. That donation helped accelerate the government's earlier work to create a government-wide portal. In June 2000, President Clinton announced the gift from the Federal Search Foundation, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Brewer and fellow entrepreneur David Binetti, and instructed that the portal be launched in 90 days.

FirstGov.gov was launched 87 days later on September 22, 2000, during the first-ever webcast originating from the White House Oval Office. GSA and 22 Federal agencies funded the initiative in 2001 and 2002. Since 2002, USA.gov has received an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress.

The name FirstGov.gov was changed in 2007 to USA.gov, in response to user suggestions and telephone surveys. 

On July 2, 2010, USA.gov revamped the website to improve user access to citizen services through new mobile applications for on-the-go instant access; public engagement platforms; and the fastest, most comprehensive search function for government information.

Structure

USA.gov helps visitors find federal information in several ways, detailed below. Additionally, USA.gov invites the public to share feedback on apps they would find useful by using government information available on Data.gov and USAspending.gov, and to share ideas to improve government through public dialogues and government contests.

E-mail alerts

Visitors to USA.gov can sign up for free e-mail alerts in both English and Spanish, to learn about popular government topics and important services and benefits. The pages' subjects range from benefits, scams, and fraud, and contacting elected officials to hurricane recovery, travel, and jobs.

USAGov Contact Center

For more than 30 years, the contact center has been a source for answers to questions about consumer problems and government services. 

If visitors cannot find the government information they are looking for online, they can call 1-844-USAGOV1, or get help through a live web chat service.

USA.gov content

USA.gov links to diverse, useful, and timely citizen-centered government information and services that can help website visitors apply for a government job, register to vote, file their taxes, find government benefits, reserve a campsite at a national park, prepare for disasters, shop at government auctions, learn about visiting the United States, or report an unsafe product, among many other activities. 

The site's policy is to link to websites of the federal government, quasi-government agencies, and those created by public sector/private sector partnerships; state and local governments; and recognized Indian tribes. In rare instances, the sites link to websites that are not government-owned or government-sponsored if these websites provide government information and/or services in a way that is not available on an official government website.

Live chat

USA.gov offers live chat in English and Spanish, where service representatives can answer website visitors' questions about federal agencies, programs, benefits, or services.

RSS feeds

USA.gov and USAGov en Español offer RSS feeds to help the public stay up to date on useful government information. Website visitors can sign up for USA.gov RSS feeds, and the USAGov en Español.

Search.USA.gov

USA.gov's search engine supports transparency of government information by providing access to government web pages from U.S. federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. The portal features state-of-the-art navigation aids and high-interest, agency-produced databases such as frequently asked questions, government forms, recalls, and government images. Search.USA.gov is also available on its mobile service. In addition, any U.S. government agency can apply through the USA Services Affiliate Program to install the Search.gov search capability on its own pages, thus allowing agencies at all levels to provide website searching for their own users.

Social Media

USA.gov uses Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and Instagram to distribute timely official U.S. government information and emergency information, announce official government events and observances, share official government photos and videos, and gather feedback from the public.

URL shortening

A URL shortening service, go.USA.gov, is available to users that have a .gov email address (only .gov URLs may be submitted for shortening through this service). The service will generate a random URL following go.USA.gov/ which redirects the user to the longer .gov URL stored in the system.

USAGov en Español

A part of USA.gov, USAGov en Español pulls together all of the U.S. government's Spanish-language websites and makes them easily accessible to the public in one central location. The site, which was developed by Spanish speakers, represents an outreach effort to some 43 million Americans who report speaking Spanish at home. 

Although most of the resources shared on USAGov en Español are federal, the site also links to Spanish-language content provided by states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and local government websites. 

Web visitors also can search all federal and state web pages for Spanish content through the site's search engine, call 1-844USAGOV1 for help in Spanish and English or chat with a representative online. Spanish-speaking visitors can sign up for e-mail alerts in Spanish to let them know about important benefits and services. The website also offers information on the same topic in both English and Spanish by simply clicking on a toggle button.

Web best practices

USA.gov actively promotes best practices within the government web manager community to improve the overall quality of U.S. federal websites as well as public access to government information.

Federal Web Managers Council

Interagency Committee on Government Information

USA.gov has a leadership role on the Interagency Committee on Government Information (ICGI), formed to meet requirements of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347, 44 U.S.C. Ch 36). The ICGI drafts recommendations and shares effective practices for federal government information access, dissemination, and retention.

Crisis response initiatives

USA.gov is a critical destination for information during national disasters. After the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, USA.gov became a major tool for the U.S. government to provide the most accurate, timely, and comprehensive information, resources, and government services available during that crisis.

Several years later, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, USA.gov participated in efforts led by the Department of Homeland Security and worked with over 20 federal agencies to develop guidance to communicate response information related to the storm and its aftermath. Agencies were encouraged to coordinate web information to avoid duplication and inconsistencies so the public could quickly and easily find critical information.

Categories identified during Katrina matched information people would be looking for in "any" disaster, whether natural or man-made. The federal web community can now re-use a good deal of the content developed in response to the hurricane crisis, to enable them to be even better prepared when the next disaster occurs.

Model to other government websites

USA.gov serves as a model for other government websites and adheres to all requirements and guidelines for federal websites, including those established by the E-Government Act of 2002, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Policies for Federal Public Websites, and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 regarding website accessibility. The site also follows requirements of the Privacy Act, the Federal Information Security Management Act, and other privacy and security requirements.

Awards

USA.gov has won numerous awards and media endorsements, including:

• Listing among the "Best of..." by Money Magazine, "Favorite Places on the Web" by the Chicago Sun Times, "Hot Sites" by USATODAY.com, "Top 100 Classic Sites" by PC Magazine, and Time Magazine's 2007 "Top 25 Sites We Can't Live Without."
• It also has won "#1 Federal Government Website—Comparing Technology Innovation in the Private and Public Sectors," by the Brookings Institution; "#1 in Global E-Government Readiness" in the United Nations' Global E-Government Readiness Report 2005; "#1 in Overall Federal e-Government" by Brown University's Taubman Center for Public Policy; and the "Innovations in American Government Award" by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

USAGov en Español was named a finalist for the Arroba de oro, ("the golden @"), has won the Web Content Managers' "Best Practices" award, and consistently scores among the highest in government or private sectors in the American Customer Satisfaction Index.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Agency overview
Formed	July 2, 1965; 54 years ago
Headquarters	Washington, D.C., U.S.
Employees	1,968 (FY18)
Annual budget	$379,500,000 (FY18)
Agency executives	Janet Dhillon, Chair Vacant, General Counsel Charlotte Burrows, Commissioner Victoria Lipnic, Commissioner Vacant (Keith Sonderling (nominee)), Commissioner Vacant, Commissioner
Website	www.eeoc.gov

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, children, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, and retaliation for reporting, participating in, and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.

History

On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." It established the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, which then Vice President Lyndon Johnson was appointed to head. This was the forerunner of the EEOC. 

The EEOC was established on July 2, 1965; its mandate is specified under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The EEOC's first complainants were female flight attendants. However, the EEOC at first ignored sex discrimination complaints, and the prohibition against sex discrimination in employment went unenforced for the next few years. One EEOC director called the prohibition "a fluke... conceived out of wedlock."

All Commission seats and the post of general counsel to the commission are filled by the US President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Stuart J. Ishimaru, a Commissioner who was confirmed in 2003 and 2006, served as Acting Chair of the Commission from January 20, 2009 until December 22, 2010, when the Senate confirmed Jacqueline Berrien to be the chairwoman. She had been nominated as chairwoman by President Barack Obama in July 2009. In September 2009, Obama chose Chai Feldblum to fill another vacant seat.

On March 27, 2010, President Obama made recess appointments of three Commission posts: Berrien, Feldblum, and Victoria Lipnic. With the appointments, the Commission had its full five Commissioners: Ishimaru, Berrien, Feldblum, Lipnic, and Constance Barker, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2008 to be a Commissioner. President Obama also made a recess appointment of P. David Lopez to be the EEOC's General Counsel.

On December 22, 2010, the Senate gave full confirmation to Berrien, Feldblum, Lipnic, and Lopez. In 2014, President Obama renominated Lopez and he was reconfirmed by the Senate the same year.

In 2011, the Commission included "sex-stereotyping" of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, as a form of sex discrimination illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2012, the Commission expanded protection provided by Title VII to transgender status and gender identity.

After the departure of Ishimaru, the commission returned to its full five commissioners on April 25, 2013, with the Senate confirmation of Jenny Yang.

In 2015, it concluded that for Title VII, sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation.

However, the rulings, while persuasive, are not binding on courts and would need to be addressed by the Supreme Court for a final decision. The Commission also mediates and settles thousands of discrimination complaints each year prior to their investigation. The EEOC is also empowered to file civil discrimination suits against employers on behalf of alleged victims and to adjudicate claims of discrimination brought against federal agencies.

Staffing, workload, and backlog

In 1975, when the backlog reached more than 100,000 charges to be investigated, President Gerald Ford's full requested budget of $62 million was approved. A "Backlog Unit" was created in Philadelphia in 1978 to resolve the thousands of federal equal employment complaints inherited from the Civil Service Commission. In 1980, Eleanor Holmes Norton began re-characterizing the backlog cases as "workload" in her reports to Congress, thus fulfilling her promise to eliminate the backlog.

In June 2006, civil rights and labor union advocates publicly complained that the effectiveness of the EEOC was being undermined by budget and staff cuts and the outsourcing of complaint screening to a private contractor whose workers were poorly trained. In 2006, a partial budget freeze prevented the agency from filling vacant jobs, and its staff had shrunk by nearly 20 percent from 2001. A Bush administration official stated that the cuts had been made because it was necessary to direct more money to defense and homeland security. By 2008, the EEOC had lost 25 percent of its staff over the previous eight years, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. The number of complaints to investigate grew to 95,400 in fiscal 2008, up 26 percent from 2006.

Although full-time staffing of the EEOC was cut between 2002 and 2006, Congress increased the commission's budget during that period, as it has almost every year since 1980. The budget was $303 million in fiscal year 2001 to $327 million in fiscal year 2006.

The outsourcing to Pearson Government Solutions in Kansas cost the agency $4.9 million and was called a "huge waste of money" by the president of the EEOC employees' union in 2006.

The EEOC uses monetary fines as the primary form of deterrence and, as the fines have not adjusted for inflation, the backlog of EEOC cases illustrates a decline in its effectiveness.

Race and ethnicity

The EEOC requires employers to report various information about their employees, in particular their racial/ethnic categories, to prevent discrimination based on race/ethnicity. The definitions used in the report have been different at different times.

In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget gave a Federal Register Notice, the "Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity," which defined new racial and ethnic definitions. As of September 30, 2007, the EEOC's EEO-1 report must use the new racial and ethnic definitions in establishing grounds for racial or ethnic discrimination. If an employee identifies their ethnicity as "Hispanic or Latino" as well as a race, the race is not reported in EEO-1, but it is kept as part of the employment record. 

A person's skin color or physical appearance can also be grounds for a case of racial discrimination. Discrimination based on national origin can be grounds for a case on discrimination as well.

Investigative compliance policy

EEOC applies an investigative compliance policy when respondents are uncooperative in providing information during an investigation of a charge. If a respondent fails to turn over requested information, field offices are to subpoena the information, file a direct suit on the merits of a charge, or use the legal principle of adverse inference, which assumes the withheld information is against the respondent.

Increase in disability-based charges

In 2008, disability-based charges handled by the EEOC rose to a record 19,543, up 10.2 percent from the prior year and the highest level since 1995.

That may again be showing that because the EEOC has not adjusted many of their initial 1991 fines for inflation, the backlog of EEOC cases illustrates erosion of deterrence.

Home Depot disability discrimination suit

In September 2012, Home Depot agreed to pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC for the alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a cashier with cancer at its Towson, Maryland, store and for later purportedly firing her because of her condition.

2012 profile

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it received 99,412 private sector workplace discrimination charges during fiscal year 2012, down slightly from the previous year. The year-end data also show that retaliation (37,836), race (33,512), and sex discrimination (30,356), which includes allegations of sexual harassment and pregnancy were the most frequently filed charges.

Additionally, the EEOC achieved a second consecutive year of a significant reduction in the charge inventory, something not seen since fiscal year 2002. Due to a concerted effort, the EEOC reduced the pending inventory of private sector charges by 10 percent from fiscal year 2011, bringing the inventory level to 70,312. This inventory reduction is the second consecutive decrease of almost ten percent in charge inventory. Also this fiscal year, the agency obtained the largest amount of monetary recovery from private sector and state and local government employers through its administrative process — $365.4 million.

In fiscal year 2012, the EEOC filed 122 lawsuits, including 86 individual suits, 26 multiple-victim suits, with fewer than 20 victims, and 10 systemic suits. The EEOC's legal staff resolved 254 lawsuits for a total monetary recovery of $44.2 million. 

EEOC also continued its emphasis on eliminating alleged systemic patterns of discrimination in the workplace. In fiscal year 2012, EEOC completed 240 systemic investigations which in part resulted in 46 settlements or conciliation agreements. These settlements, achieved without litigation, secured 36.2 million dollars for the victims of unlawful discrimination. In addition, the agency filed 12 systemic lawsuits in fiscal year 2012. 

Overall, the agency secured both monetary and non-monetary benefits for more than 23,446 people through administrative enforcement activities – mediation, settlements, conciliations, and withdrawals with benefits. The number of charges resolved through successful conciliation, the last step in the EEOC administrative process prior to litigation, increased by 18 percent over 2011.

Successes

On May 1, 2013, a Davenport, Iowa jury awarded the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissission damages totaling $240 million — the largest verdict in the federal agency's history — for disability discrimination and severe abuse.

The jury agreed with the EEOC that Hill County Farms, doing business as Henry's Turkey Service subjected a group of 32 men with intellectual disabilities to severe abuse and discrimination for a period between 2007 and 2009, after 20 years of similar mistreatment. This victory received international attention and was profiled in the New York Times.

On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia that an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant if the employer was motivated by avoiding the need to accommodate a religious practice. Such behavior violates the prohibition on religious discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez hailed the decision. "At its root, this case is about defending the quintessentially American principles of religious freedom and tolerance," Lopez said. "This decision is a victory for our increasingly diverse society and we applaud Samantha Elauf's courage and tenacity in pursuing this matter.”

Criticism

Some employment-law professionals criticized the agency after it issued advice that requiring a high school diploma from job applicants could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The advice letter stated that the longtime lowest common denominator of employee screening must be "job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." A Ballard Spahr lawyer suggested, "There will be less incentive for the general public to obtain a high school diploma if many employers eliminate that requirement for job applicants in their workplace."

The EEOC has been criticized for alleged heavy-handed tactics in their 1980 lawsuit against retailer Sears, Roebuck & Co. Based on a statistical analysis of personnel and promotions, EEOC argued that Sears both was systematically excluding women from high-earning positions in commission sales and was paying female management lower wages than male management. Sears, represented by lawyer Charles Morgan, Jr., counter-argued that the company had encouraged female applicants for sales and management, but women preferred lower-paying positions with more stable daytime working hours, as compared to commission sales, which demanded evening and weekend shifts and featured drastically-varying paychecks, depending on the numbers of sales in a given pay period. In 1986, the court ruled in favor of Sears on all counts and noted that the EEOC had neither produced a single witness who alleged discrimination nor identified any Sears policy that discriminated against women.

In a 2011 ruling against the EEOC, Judge Loretta A. Preska declared that It relied too heavily on anecdotal claims rather than on hard data, in a lawsuit against Bloomberg, L.P. that alleged discrimination against pregnant employees. In a ruling described in the New York Times as "strongly worded," Preska wrote, "the law does not mandate 'work-life balance' and added that while Bloomberg had expected high levels of dedication from employees, the company did not treat women who took pregnancy leave differently from those who took leave for other reasons.