© Copy righted by EEO 21, LLC
148 E. Street Road, Suite 321, Feasterville, PA, U.S.A.
In 2009 EEOC found discrimination on less than 3% of cases.  See more.  

The reasons for the low winning rate of discrimination complaints in the federal employment
cases may be as follows (assuming that the complaint is
properly articulated and timely filed and
that no deadlines are missed during each
federal EEO processes):

  1. Witnesses generally lie in favor of the Agency for fear of retaliation.
  2. Agency has all the resources at its disposal such as EEO counselor, EEO Directors, EEO
    investigators, managers, HR, and in-house attorneys.  Despite their claims, EEO
    counselors, directors, and investigators are generally not "objective."  They are on the
    Agency payroll and are encouraged by the Agency head to eliminate or sabotage EEO
    claims.
  3. EEOC administrative judges (AJ's) are usually conservative and want to err on the side of
    the Agency.  After all, Agency is innocent until proven guilty.
  4. Agency can sit it out for a long time and has greater resources to do so than complainant.
  5. Agency may produce misleading, if not altered, records in favor of their position.
  6. Management would corroborate with each other and may even lie in order to protect each
    other.   
  7. The legal theories of discriminations are complex.  You must first establish the prima
    facie case.  And then establish the pretext in the decision makers' purported non-
    discriminatory/retaliatory reasons for acting the way they did which is at issue.  In each
    theory of discrimination generally established by legal precedence, the prima facie case is
    different from the other theories; and how to prove pretext is also different from the others.  
    See samples of AJ decisions for more on legal standards, prima facie cases, and pretext.
  8. It is difficulty to establish favorable treatment of the "similarly situated individuals." Unless
    the case involves a direct evidence (where the decision maker states under declaration
    that he or she acted based on your race, age, sex, disability, national origin, prior EEO
    activity, etc.); complainant must establish favorable treatment of the other similar situated
    individuals by management who treated you unfavorably.   Defining the "similarly situated"
    is always contentious; and establishing the favorable treatment of them under
    comparable circumstances involves large amount of data (on those individuals) which the
    complainant usually does not have, and which is difficulty to present due to large volume
    and difficulty in the comparative work that is necessary.

For the reasons stated above, it is better to enter into an amicable settlement agreement.  More
on
settlement.

Regarding concealment, removal, or mutilation of records, see
Title 18: Crimes and Criminal
Procedures, Part 1, Chapter 101: Records and Reports.

AJ's pleas for reforming EEOC
    EEO 21, LLC
    EEOC hearings
    EEO representation
    MSPB appeal hearings
    Federal employment discrimination specialist
    serving nationwide
    from Philadelphia
Reasons for the Low Rate of Finding Discrimination