California's Civil Rights Department (CRD) Under Scrutiny: Report Reveals Litigious Tactics and Funding Controversy
The release of a report by the California Policy Center sheds light on a concerning issue involving the Civil Rights Department (CRD) and its funding methods. Rather than assisting workers who have experienced civil rights violations, the CRD has resorted to aggressive tactics to extract funds from deep-pocketed employers, adversely affecting both workers and businesses in California. The report, titled "Enforcing Civil Rights: Does a Regulator's Profit Motive Benefit the Public Interest?", examines the negative impact of the CRD's evolution and proposes legislative actions to rectify the situation.
According to Will Swaim, President of the California Policy Center, the CRD's focus should be on aiding workers and not extorting money from employers to fund its operations. The department's aggressive tactics have resulted in delays in settlements for workers and have even driven employers out of the state. To address these concerns, the report suggests specific actions that the legislature can take to restore balance.
The California Assembly Budget Committee and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee have scheduled meetings to review the CRD's budget in the upcoming week. This presents an opportunity for legislative oversight and potential reforms.
Previously known as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), the department was originally established to combat discrimination and handle bias claims. However, over time, the CRD has deviated from its original purpose and has become an overly litigious regulator, clashing with federal counterparts, civil rights attorneys, and the very victims it was meant to protect.
The department's aggressive approach, coupled with its penchant for derailing settlements, has led to delayed compensation for victims and hindered the implementation of necessary policy changes to prevent discrimination. Additionally, the CRD's campaigns targeting corporate brands have contributed to businesses leaving California.
One factor contributing to this shift is SB 1038, which established a "special fund" connected directly to the department, enabling court awards or settlements to be deposited for the department's budget. This provision has incentivized the CRD to pursue cases with higher financial returns rather than focusing on the public interest.
The report highlights specific instances where the CRD intervened in major cases, disregarding the work of other parties involved, such as plaintiffs and federal agencies. These actions have further delayed settlements and resolution for the affected individuals.
To address these issues, the report calls for a significant cultural change within the CRD. Additionally, it suggests legislative amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and SB 1038. The proposed revisions include repealing the "bounty hunter" provision, reinstating the adjudicatory function of the former Fair Employment and Housing Commission, requiring administrative rather than civil action, clarifying due-process standards, and increasing transparency in state legal settlements.
By implementing these changes, it is hoped that the CRD can shift its focus back to its original purpose of protecting civil rights, facilitate timely resolution of cases, eliminate discriminatory practices, expedite compensation for victims, and improve the business climate in California.
The California Policy Center recommends that the Legislature seriously consider these revisions to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and SB 1038 and take the following actions:
-
- Reestablish the adjudicatory function of the former Fair Employment and Housing Commission. The Legislature should supply administrative law judges to handle cases, rather than leaning on litigation.
- Require CRD to pursue cases through administrative rather than civil action or at a minimum clarify that Director’s complaints must still meet legal standards for civil actions.
- Clarify and reinforce FEHA’s due-process standards. The accused should be afforded time to review, respond, and engage in good faith settlement talks prior to formal accusations.
- Clarify existing requirements that complaints and causes of findings shall include evidence and facts that lead to the department’s finding of a violation or violations and shall be issued to the accused.
- Increase transparency of state legal settlements. The Controller or individual agencies should report to the Legislature annually on judgments received via litigation and what happens to those funds.
