State of Texas v. EEOC et al

Filing 35

Supplemental Document by State of Texas as to 32 Response/Objection, . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A-2) (Mitchell, Jonathan)

EXHIBIT A-2

07/09/2016 13:23 FAX [phone]

1A0002/0003

EQUAL EMPL OPP COMM

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Houston District Office
Total Plaza
1201 Louisiana Street - Floor
Houston, TX 77002-8049

e

Houston Direct Dial [phone]
stephen.darnianigeeoe.gov

FAX [phone]

July 9, 2014
Stephen Quezada
Ogletree & Deakins
One Allen Center
500 Dallas Street, Suite 3000.
Houston, Texas 77002
BY FAX [phone]) Only
Re
Dear Mr. Quezada:
You have replaced earlier lawyers in this matter and, for that reason, my most recent
letters, those sent on May 23rd and June 9th have been an attempt to focus your client's attention
on consequential matters of which you might not otherwise be aware. It was hoped that you
would address the concerns raised in those letters. More particularly, I expressed the concern that
you imposed preconditions on a witness interview that are unacceptable and that it was expected
you would provide "any and all evidence in any form that explains why Charging Party was not
referred to any jobs after he was removed from up" Your June 20th letter has not provided any
relevant evidence regarding the matter of CP's not being referred to jobs after he was removed
from 4111 but you did recapitulate some other information and, of course, this matter will be
reviewed. In that vein, though, your letter contains misrepresentations regarding our
conversation, the criminal conviction enforcement guidance and the content of earlier
correspondence.
At this stage, your only misunderstanding that warrants a reply concern the enforcement
guidance. After all, we would be remiss to allow your confusion to harm your client on this
score. When you cite a motion to dismiss pending in a lawsuit, you have confused issues arising
under the Administrative Procedures Act regarding whether or not there is final agency action
warranting judicial review with the agency's appropriate role in providing guidance to employers
and employees. If the Commission issues cause and conciliation fails and then it chooses to file
suit against a private employer, under certain circumstances, judicial review may be appropriate
pursuant to the APA. But before the EEOC files suit against a respondent, when the APA cannot
be invoked as there is no final agency action, the criminal conviction guidance is, as it suggests,
guidance. It is not self-enforcing but, rather, dependent on a court's merits decision after suit has
been filed. Put otherwise, it is hoped you will not mislead your client into believing it would be a
good policy for it to ignore the enforcement guidance on criminal convictions. Yet that might be
the effect of your ideas about this matter as, for example, you have mischaracterized that
guidance as "ineffectual".

07/09/2016 13:23 FAX [phone]

EQUAL EMPL OPP COMM

Z0003/0003

My recommendations will be forwarded to enforcement management as my efforts to
obtain relevant evidence have not, apparently, induced you to be more cooperative.

Since ly,

s,

j! en liami
"
Lead Systemic Investigator