# Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 *Federal statute (Public Law 92-261, 86 Stat. 103, March 24, 1972) amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.* The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-261, 86 Stat. 103) is a federal statute dated March 24, 1972, that amended [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].[^1] Its long title gives its object as to "further promote equal employment opportunities for American workers."[^1] Section 2 inserted "governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions," into section 701(a) of the 1964 Act and rewrote the definition of "employer". These changes brought state and local governments within Title VII's coverage.[^2] Section 4 provided that when a government respondent does not reach a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the case goes to the Attorney General, who may bring a civil action in federal district court.[^3] The definitions the Act wrote are the predicate pleaded in a pending federal suit against [[Minnesota]]. On January 14, 2026, the United States filed *United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, Civil No. 0:26-cv-00273, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.[^4] The suit is brought under section 707 of Title VII as amended. It pleads that the State is a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an "employer" under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), which are the subsections of section 701 that the 1972 Act amended.[^4][^2] The complaint alleges that the statewide affirmative action program required by Minnesota statute and rules is a pattern or practice of discrimination by race and sex in violation of Title VII.[^5] The case is pending. No ruling and no answer by the State appear in the sources cited here.[^4] [[Affirmative action]] appears in the Act's own text. It authorizes a court that finds intentional discrimination to "order such affirmative action as may be appropriate."[^6] It also bars the denial of a federal contract without a hearing to an employer holding an "affirmative action plan which has previously been accepted by the Government."[^7] The 2026 complaint alleges that the Supreme Court read an affirmative-action allowance into Title VII in *United Steelworkers of America v. Weber* (1979) and extended it in *Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County* (1987). It further alleges that Title VII's text does not support that exception, and it relies on [[Bostock v. Clayton County]] (2020) for the rule that "Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."[^8] It also alleges that Minnesota's program "violates Title VII even under the permissive Weber/Johnson framework."[^9] ## Who The Act was enacted by "the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."[^1] The sources cited here do not record the Act's sponsors, its roll-call votes, the parties of those voting, or the signing President. This article therefore states no partisan breakdown of the enactment.[^1] The Act assigned its functions to named offices. Section 8 rewrote section 705(a) to create the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Commission has five members, "not more than three of whom shall be members of the same political party." Members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for five-year terms, and the President designates a Chairman and a Vice Chairman.[^10] Section 8 also added a General Counsel, appointed for four years, who is responsible for litigation under sections 706 and 707; the Attorney General conducts the Commission's litigation in the Supreme Court.[^10] Section 706(f)(1) gave the Attorney General cases against government respondents.[^3] New section 717 gave the Civil Service Commission enforcement authority over federal employment, with the Librarian of Congress exercising that authority for the Library of Congress.[^11] In the 2026 suit, the plaintiff is the United States, acting through the Civil Rights Division of the [[United States Department of Justice]]. Counsel listed on the complaint include Daniel N. Rosen, United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Harmeet K. Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General.[^12] The civil cover sheet lists [[Keith Ellison]], Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, and Nick Pladson, Assistant Attorney General, as attorneys for the State.[^13] ## What Section 2 rewrote the definition of "employer" in section 701(b). The new definition covers persons in an industry affecting commerce with fifteen or more employees in each of twenty or more calendar weeks.[^2] It excludes: - the United States and corporations wholly owned by the federal government; - Indian tribes; - certain District of Columbia agencies in the competitive service; - tax-exempt bona fide private membership clubs.[^2] Section 2 also changed the definition of "employee". It excludes persons elected to public office in a State or political subdivision, their personal staff, and policy-making appointees and immediate advisers. Employees subject to a State's civil service laws remain covered.[^2] Finally, section 2 added a definition of "religion" that covers observance and practice as well as belief, unless an employer shows it cannot reasonably accommodate them without undue hardship.[^2] Other sections made the following changes: - **Section 3** restated the section 702 exemption for employing aliens outside any State and for religious organizations employing individuals of a particular religion.[^14] - **Section 8** extended sections 703 and 704 to applicants for employment and membership, and to joint labor-management committees that control apprenticeship and training programs.[^10] - **Section 11** added section 717. It requires that personnel actions in federal military departments, executive agencies, the Postal Service and other listed units be free of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Each agency must submit a plan "to maintain an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity."[^11] - **Section 13** added section 718 on government contracts.[^7] ## When - **March 24, 1972:** Public Law 92-261 bears this date.[^1] - **First year after enactment:** employers with fewer than twenty-five employees were not considered employers. Section 701(e) applied a twenty-five threshold in that year and a threshold of fifteen thereafter.[^2] - **Two years after enactment:** section 5 provided that the Attorney General's section 707 functions would transfer to the Commission. The transfer would not occur if the President submitted, and neither House of Congress vetoed, an inconsistent reorganization plan.[^15] - **June 30, 1978:** Executive Order No. 12068, 43 Fed. Reg. 28971, *Providing for Transfer to the Attorney General of Certain Functions Under Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Amended*, was issued. The 2026 complaint cites it in its jurisdictional paragraphs.[^4] - **January 28 and February 22, 1972:** the Congressional Record pages for these dates contain other Senate business, and neither contains the Act's floor debate or votes. - On January 28, the Senate met under President pro tempore [[Allen J. Ellender]] and took up committee funding resolutions and editorials on the Vietnam peace plan.[^16] - On February 22, senators debated a Scott–Mansfield school-busing amendment to an education bill.[^17] - **January 14, 2026:** the United States filed its complaint against Minnesota.[^4] ## Where The Act applies nationally. Section 706(f)(3) allows a Title VII action to be brought in any of three judicial districts: - the district in the State where the practice is alleged to have been committed; - the district where the relevant employment records are kept; - the district where the aggrieved person would have worked.[^3] ## Why The Act's long title states its purpose.[^1] Section 715 established the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council. The Council develops agreements and policies among federal enforcement agencies designed to "maximize effort, promote efficiency, and eliminate conflict, competition, duplication and inconsistency."[^18] The Congressional Record pages cited here do not contain the Act's debate, so the sources cited here give no further statement of congressional purpose.[^16][^17] ## How Section 4 rewrote the charge procedure in section 706: - **Charges and investigation.** A charge must be in writing under oath or affirmation. The Commission serves notice on the respondent within ten days and investigates. It dismisses the charge if it finds no reasonable cause; otherwise it attempts conciliation. It decides reasonable cause "so far as practicable, not later than one hundred and twenty days" from filing.[^19] - **Deferral to state agencies.** Where a State or locality has its own fair employment law and agency, a charge may not be filed until sixty days after state proceedings begin. That period is one hundred and twenty days during the first year of the state law.[^20] - **Filing deadlines.** Charges are due within one hundred and eighty days of the practice. The deadline is three hundred days where the aggrieved person first went to a state or local agency, or thirty days after that agency ends its proceedings, whichever is earlier.[^20] - **Suits.** If conciliation fails, the Commission may sue a private respondent, but a government respondent is referred to the Attorney General. The aggrieved person may intervene in either kind of suit. If neither a suit nor a conciliation agreement follows within one hundred and eighty days, the person is notified and may sue within ninety days.[^3] Section 5 gave the Commission authority to investigate and act on charges of a "pattern or practice" of discrimination under section 706 procedures.[^15] Section 6 allowed the Commission to cooperate with, pay, and enter written agreements with state fair employment agencies. These agreements may include terms under which the Commission refrains from processing specified charges. Section 6 also required employers to keep the records and make the reports the Commission prescribes.[^21] ## How much - Public disclosure of conciliation information is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of not more than one year, or both.[^19] - Back pay liability does not accrue from more than two years before the charge was filed with the Commission. Interim earnings reduce the award.[^6] - Section 12 allowed the Commission's Chairman to place an additional ten positions in grades GS-16, GS-17 and GS-18.[^22] - Section 9 placed the Chairman, members and General Counsel on the federal executive pay schedule.[^22] - The Act's text carries no appropriation figure.[^1] ## How many - **Coverage threshold:** fifteen employees in each of twenty or more calendar weeks, or twenty-five during the first year.[^2] - **Commission:** five members, no more than three of one party, serving five-year terms. The General Counsel serves four years.[^10] - **Coordinating Council:** five officials — the Secretary of Labor, the Commission Chairman, the Attorney General, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and the Chairman of the Civil Rights Commission. The Council reports to the President and Congress on or before July 1 each year.[^18] - **Section 718:** a twelve-month window for previously accepted plans. A plan counts as accepted unless the Office of Federal Contract Compliance disapproves it within forty-five days.[^7] - **Section 717:** agency progress reports at least semiannually.[^11] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who The complaint identifies [[Minnesota Management and Budget]] (MMB) as the agency that oversees the statewide affirmative action program. Under [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.19]], subd. 1(a), MMB's Commissioner must adopt and periodically revise the program and must establish statewide goals.[^23] Under [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]], subd. 3(a), as quoted in the complaint, the Commissioner audits each agency annually. The Commissioner reports to the [[governor]] when an agency "fails to meet any of its affirmative action requirements for two consecutive years."[^24] The [[Minnesota Department of Human Services]] (DHS) hiring justification policy, filed as Exhibit B to the complaint, is signed by Andrew Petroski, Director of the DHS Equal Opportunity and Access Division.[^25] ### What The complaint pleads two counts of pattern or practice discrimination: - **Count 1** alleges violations of section 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). It cites three practices: staffing and personnel decisions (hiring, promotions, transfers and layoffs) based on race, color, national origin and sex; race- and sex-based employment goals; and requiring agencies to "justify" and obtain approval before hiring employees who are "not female, black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, or Alaskan native."[^26] - **Count 2** alleges violations of section 703(a)(2) through the classification of employees and applicants into the protected groups defined in Minn. Stat. § 43A.02, subd. 33.[^26] For each count, the complaint states that the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe the practice is Minnesota's "regular procedure or policy." It also states that the United States notified Minnesota of its determination.[^26] The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, equitable relief for affected employees and applicants, and costs.[^27] It requests a three-judge district court under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b), on the Attorney General's certification that the case is of general public importance.[^4] ### When - **January 14, 2026:** the complaint (Doc. 1) was filed, with the DHS policy attached as Exhibit B (Doc. 1-2).[^4] - **2025:** the DHS policy carries an initial date of June 17, 2025, an issue date of July 1, 2025, and an effective date of August 12, 2025. It supersedes DHS policy 4100.005, *Affirmative Action Implementation*, effective May 6, 2014.[^25] - **Enactment of the Minnesota laws:** the complaint alleges these laws were enacted around the time of the *Weber* and *Johnson* decisions. The sources cited here do not give the enactment dates, or the legislators and governors who enacted, amended or maintained them.[^5] ### Where The suit is in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, with venue pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).[^4] The civil cover sheet lists Ramsey County as the defendant's county of residence.[^13] ### Why The complaint's factual section is headed *Minnesota's Statutory and Regulatory Affirmative Action Regime*.[^23] **Stated purposes.** The State's instruments describe their own purposes in these terms: - Minn. Stat. § 43A.19, subd. 1(a), as quoted in the complaint, states its purposes as "assur[ing] that positions in the executive branch of the civil service are equally accessible to all qualified persons." It also aims to eliminate "the effects of past and present discrimination, intended or unintended, on the basis of protected group status."[^23] - MMB describes affirmative action as "[p]ositive steps to get qualified individuals who were historically discriminated in employment."[^23] - DHS states that its policy's purpose is "to ensure DHS meets affirmative action responsibilities to comply with state statutes and must increase the diversity of its workforce to reflect and effectively serve its client base."[^25] **Documented outputs.** The outputs these instruments require are numerical and procedural: - goals set by protected group from labor-market comparisons; - a "Final Availability" estimate that MMB also calls "What We Should Look Like"; - a pre-hire justification for hires outside the protected groups when a job category is underutilized.[^28] At DHS, the policy bars an offer to a [[Non-underrepresented candidate]] until a justification is approved.[^29] **The parties' positions.** As the complaint describes the State's position, Minnesota says its plans are required by Minn. Stat. §§ 43A.19 and 43A.191 and are "prospective and analysis-driven, and designed to remedy manifest underutilization of qualified protected group members identified in specific job classifications." The complaint alleges that Minnesota "identifies no prior or present discrimination to justify its race- and sex-conscious employment policies."[^9] ### How **Statute and rules.** The steps below are as quoted in the complaint: - The protected groups are defined in Minn. Stat. § 43A.02, subd. 33, as "females, persons with disabilities, and members of the following minorities: Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan native."[^28] - The Commissioner sets statewide goals from two figures: the share of each protected class with the necessary skills in the recruiting-area population, and the availability of current protected-class employees for promotion or transfer.[^28] - Agency heads set numerical goals and timetables for each protected group a unit underutilizes. The goals are based on comparing the unit's work force with the relevant civilian labor force.[^28] - When a category is underutilized, the hiring manager must "justify its nonaffirmative action hires" on a Pre-Hire Justification Form that "explain[s] the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate."[^28] - Agencies reviewing the forms "may determine [that] the minimum qualifications need to change or [that] the agency needs to recruit differently."[^28] - Agencies with 25 or more employees must provide a preemployment review of hiring decisions for goal units with unmet goals and a prereview of layoff decisions.[^24] - Noncompliant agencies must propose internal reallocations of resources.[^24] - The Commissioner must recognize agencies making "significant and measurable progress in implementing an affirmative action plan."[^24] **DHS policy.** Exhibit B sets out the agency-level procedure: - It provides that "Hiring justifications must be submitted to and approved by DHS Equal Opportunity and Access Division (EOAD) prior to an offer of employment being made."[^25] - It defines a non-affirmative hire as "a hiring decision where a non-underrepresented candidate is chosen for hire when qualified, underrepresented candidates exist in the interview pool."[^25] - It states that employees may be disciplined, up to and including termination, for failure to comply with policies.[^25] - Human Resources "will make a good-faith effort to drive diverse applicants to the vacancy posting through targeted recruitment." It tells the hiring supervisor whether candidates belong to underrepresented groups without naming the specific group.[^30] - The supervisor "must offer interviews to at least three (3) underrepresented candidates if the interview pool contains three (3) or more underrepresented candidates."[^30] - The supervisor must record "objective reasons for selecting a non-underrepresented candidate over the most qualified underrepresented candidate" on the form *Justification for Not Hiring a Qualified Underrepresented Candidate* (DHS-3866).[^30] The complaint presents the DHS policy as an example of the statewide program.[^29] ## Notes [^1]: United States Congress, *Public Law 92-261, Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972*, 86 Stat. 103 (March 24, 1972) — short title, long title, enacting clause and date; the text carries no sponsor, vote or appropriation record. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg103.pdf [^2]: United States Congress, *Public Law 92-261*, § 2, 86 Stat. 103 (March 24, 1972) — amendments to section 701 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e): governments added in 701(a); employer, employee and religion definitions; first-year twenty-five threshold. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg103.pdf [^3]: United States Congress, *Public Law 92-261*, § 4 (section 706(f)(1)–(3)), 86 Stat. 105–106 (March 24, 1972) — conciliation, referral of government respondents to the Attorney General, intervention, notice and ninety-day right to sue, jurisdiction and venue. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg103.pdf [^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 14–19 (D. Minn., filed January 14, 2026) — filing date and court; three-judge court request; jurisdiction under Title VII as amended and Exec. Order No. 12068; venue; Minnesota pleaded as "person" and "employer" under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)–(b). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^5]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273, ¶¶ 11–13 (January 14, 2026) — allegations that Minnesota's statutory and regulatory mandate is a pattern or practice of resistance under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a), and on the timing of the State's laws. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^6]: United States Congress, *Public Law 92-261*, § 4 (section 706(g)), 86 Stat. 107 (March 24, 1972) — court remedies including affirmative action; two-year back pay limit; interim earnings offset. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg103.pdf [^7]: United States Congress, *Public Law 92-261*, § 13 (new section 718), 86 Stat. 113 (March 24, 1972) — hearing requirement for contractors with accepted affirmative action plans; twelve-month and forty-five-day periods. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg103.pdf [^8]: