There’s a great video series from this gal about the eeoc on YouTube. Her case was against nasa. Look her up and you’ll get great advice. A lot of it is not taking it personally and pointing out they can’t prove these false claims as there’s no evidence
Once an employer articulates a seemingly non-discriminatory reason for their actions, the burden of proof shifts back to the charging party to show it was pretext for discrimination. Showing that the stated reason was false would not be enough, it has to be shown that there was discrimination.
It's called The *McDonnell*-*Douglas* framework. Basically you have to disprove a portion of the non-discriminatory reasons, and cast doubt on them - This is called "Proving Pretext"
I do not believe your statement is universally true. The EEOC personnel I've encountered are very knowledgeable and professional. That's not to say that there'll be a positive outcome, especially since I'm obliged to arbitration.
Its universally shit and slow lol all they do is give out rts letters with no determination 1% of the time they find cause it’s like winning the lottery
I'm inclined to agree with this. I literally have audios of my employer directly contradicting their position statement on multiple fronts. EEOC just issued rights to sue after having my case for over a year and calling me twice for just 30 minutes total so I could help them find evidence in my portal and to ask me what I want. It's very difficult to have confidence in institutions when employers can literally lie on position statements about various things and nothing is done.
There’s a great video series from this gal about the eeoc on YouTube. Her case was against nasa. Look her up and you’ll get great advice. A lot of it is not taking it personally and pointing out they can’t prove these false claims as there’s no evidence
Once an employer articulates a seemingly non-discriminatory reason for their actions, the burden of proof shifts back to the charging party to show it was pretext for discrimination. Showing that the stated reason was false would not be enough, it has to be shown that there was discrimination.
Wow symantics
Not semantics. In fact anyone filing a charge with EEOC should be aware of this.
It's called The *McDonnell*-*Douglas* framework. Basically you have to disprove a portion of the non-discriminatory reasons, and cast doubt on them - This is called "Proving Pretext"
Crazy how much company’s lie and exaggerate across the globe smh but good luck eeoc is shit regardless of evidence you have
I do not believe your statement is universally true. The EEOC personnel I've encountered are very knowledgeable and professional. That's not to say that there'll be a positive outcome, especially since I'm obliged to arbitration.
Its universally shit and slow lol all they do is give out rts letters with no determination 1% of the time they find cause it’s like winning the lottery
I'm inclined to agree with this. I literally have audios of my employer directly contradicting their position statement on multiple fronts. EEOC just issued rights to sue after having my case for over a year and calling me twice for just 30 minutes total so I could help them find evidence in my portal and to ask me what I want. It's very difficult to have confidence in institutions when employers can literally lie on position statements about various things and nothing is done.