By now you have likely heard that the EEOC has significantly reduced the time to respond to a notice of a pending EEOC charge. Historically, when a respondent received a notice of an EEOC charge (which are delivered via e-correspondence — so be on the lookout for e-mail from the EEOC), it typically had at least 30 days to provide a response. That 30-day period could oftentimes be extended by two to four weeks by filing an online request for the extension, which the EEOC would usually grant so long as the respondent could illustrate that it was working diligently to respond, not anymore.
While the EEOC has not made this an official policy for agency-wide treatment, many labor and employment attorneys are reporting that the EEOC portal is advising that a response is now due within 15 days: one-half of the previous typical timeframe, and of the period outlined on the EEOC website for responses (see EEOC FAQs for Responding to a Charge). Further, reports abound that the EEOC is not allowing extensions. This approach begs the question: why? Isn’t the goal[1] of the investigation process to get to the bottom of whether a charge has merit? Does reducing the response time to a charge facilitate this goal? Highly unlikely.
However, the reduction does allow the EEOC to “improve” its statistical performance: by reducing its significant backlog and quickly ending its obligations associated with new charges. By closing charges earlier, the EEOC can now “move” to the conciliation...
[OSEN=Choi Lee-jung Reporter] As past remarks by singer Yang Hong-won expressing his dislike of infidelity resurface, reactions continue to grow that the recent 'motel infidelity allegations' agai...