necticut has found it necessary to conduct three formal hearings, one in 1950 and two in 1951, New York one hearing in 1950," and Massachusetts and Oregon one each in 1951.28 With the exception of one Connecticut case in 1951, all these formal proceedings led to the issuance of an order to the respondent to cease and desist from illegal discrimination. (Table II and text continues on following pages) * On June 16, 1952, the New York State Commission Against Discrimination conducted its second formal hearing. * The hearing in Oregon led to one cease and desist order covering nine cases. : 13 12.11 STATE AND MUNICIPAL FAIR EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION 17 1 Fiscal year ending in 1952 or 1953, except for Oregon, which is for calendar year 1951. Omitting cases pending, withdrawn, and over which the administrative agency had Data available only to June 30, 1949. Where percentages are given for the period up 10 8 cases out of 71, including 6 city government agencies, 1 county, and 1 State. 12 2 out of 423 cases. 13 Mainly cases of "general noncompliance with the law." 14 Includes unlawful practices in application forms and advertisements. 15 Data not available in official reports. special correspondence with agency officials. Sources: Official reports issued by State and municipal administrative agencies, anp 6. EMPLOYERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD EXISTING FEP LEGISLATION Although fair employment practice legislation usually seek prevent or to eliminate discrimination by other groups as well. employers who are the main group affected by the new restricti As has been pointed out in the preceding section, employers been the object of about 80 percent of the complaints of discrimin in the seven States and two municipalities where enforceable FE laws and ordinances have been in operation. What attitudes do employers express toward FEP legislat Invariably, employers have opposed the enactment of a compuls fair employment practices law, but their attitude has changed as 2 law has been in effect. The agencies have moved cautions administering the law, and their approach has convinced m employers that the law is not intended to harass them and to rest their freedom to run their businesses, and that, indeed, the benefits them by enlarging the labor market. Some of the administrative agencies have publicized the attit of employers who have testified to the law's usefulness or to the is that it has not hampered them. Early in 1950, Business Week as employers what they thought of the enforceable FEP laws in the States. The magazine summarized the answers as follows: "S employers still think there's no need for a law. But even those opposed an FEPC aren't actively hostile now." One of the compa responding to the Business Week inquiry was the Aluminum Ce America, with plants in six States having an FEP law. This compa reported that the various laws have hardly affected its perso policies; only minor changes in record keeping had to be m Eleven other firms responding to Business Week were more favor to the law. These firms included an insurance company, m works, manufacturers of textiles, clothing, paper, and electr equipment, operating in New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Yo All 11 reported that the law did not interfere with their right to Con the most competent employees they could find, and that the was functioning without any serious problems.29 The testimony of employers as publicized by the FEP agencies been even more favorable. Early this year, for example, the York agency, in a statement to a subcommittee of the United Sta Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, presented comments of a "representative of an association of retail merchants a "financial district observer," and a "public utility company. The first testified that the law has simple requirements that imp no hardship upon an employer; he is asked merely to hire the bes person for the job. The second reported that, although discrim tion continues, the law has had a "fine effect upon the employme practices of banks and brokerage houses in the financial distric The third thanked the FEP agency for its fair consideration of th company's employment practices. The agency's work, the compst said, has been of "definite value to us in appraising our perso methods and practices." Welcoming the agency's suggestions, the company expressed its desire to eliminate prejudice. 20 Business Week, February 25, 1950. 20 New York State Commission Against Discrimination, Statement of the New York State Com Against Discrimination before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Mana Relations, April 16, 1952, pp. 11-12. In 40 The Rhode Island Commission for Fair Employment Practices has stated that it has convinced many employers, "on the basis of test and experience," of the groundlessness of their early fears that their employees would resent the hiring of minority groups, or that such workers as salespersons would lead to a drop in business.31 The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (formerly the Fair Employment Practice Commission) has published a 4-year report in which it presents employers' statements that their experience in fair employment practices has led to no difficulties and has actually benefited them. Statements of this kind are presented for 11 firms, and the commission lists 15 more, among others not listed, that have reported similar experience. Among these 26 firms named are the Budd Co., Philadelphia Transportation Co., H. Daroff & Sons, Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Philadelphia, Gimbel Bros., Penn Fruit Co., Philadelphia Inquirer, Leeds & Northrup Co., Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, General Electric Co., Sears Roebuck & Co., Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co. The Minneapolis Fair Employment Practice Commission has also published some employers' opinions of the ordinance.32 The leading officers of five important companies (including General Mills and Coast-to-Coast Stores) testify that the ordinance has had a beneficial effect in Minneapolis. Other company officers point out that their policy of fair employment has worked well. 7. CHALLENGES IN THE COURTS Although with one exception the constitutionality of the State and municipal fair employment practice laws and ordinances has not been challenged in the courts, there has been litigation over a small number of rulings issued by the agencies in Connecticut, New York, and Philadelphia. In general, the agencies' rulings have been upheld. In Connecticut the superior court in 1950 sustained a ruling of the Commission on Civil Rights (then called the Interracial Commission) that a dairy company had discriminated in refusing to hire a Negro in 1949. The court, however, limited the commission's power when it held that the agency could not order the company to hire the rejected applicant so long after the discriminatory act occurred; the court held that the commission could only order the company to "cease and desist from refusing, because of his race, to employ him" if he should in the future "present himself for employment." As a result of this decision, the commission has asked the legislature for the express power to require affirmative action of respondents found to have discriminated illegally 33 At the same time the commission has adopted the policy that no case of an illegal refusal to hire shall be considered satisfactorily settled by conciliation unless the employer Inakes a bona fide offer to hire the complainant. In 1951 the Connecticut agency issued an order to a local of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to cease and desist from refusing to admit two Negroes solely because of their race. The local has challenged this ruling in court, raising also the question of the constitutionality of the law itself. "Rhode Island Commission for Fair Employment Practices, Annual Report, 1950, p. 10. pp. 4-7. Minneapolis Fair Employment Practice Commission, 1952 Progress Report (Our Human Resources), * Most of the States and cities with enforceable FEP laws and ordinances have this power. |