I am responding to a recent letter from Thomas Meites who complains about the Tribune’s “one-sided coverage” of a mysterious case the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission might be pursuing against me. He maintains that since the EEOC does not pursue “frivolous investigations,” the case against me must have more merit than has been revealed in the press.
Unless Mr. Meites has more facts than the EEOC gave me, the assumption that I am guilty is speculation based on his estimation of the EEOC’s good reputation and worthwhile mission. Such speculation is unworthy of a reputable lawyer.
Mr. Meites also appears to be missing the point of the Tribune and Mike Royko’s coverage of the case. They primarily criticize EEOC’s procedures of demanding major concessions without giving the facts about how I violated the law. I was asked to accept punishment on faith and admit guilt. The implication is that I submit or be sued.
Almost three months have passed since the EEOC determined that it failed to get voluntary compliance from me. To date no legal action has been taken. The problem is that I do not know what to be afraid of, as I do not know how the Medici Restaurants may have been discriminatory. And, as Royko suggests, if the facts were forthcoming, the matter could be settled a lot more efficiently and agreeably than in a court of law. Even if the EEOC does have a valid case against me, which is yet unknown, the way the commission goes about obtaining compliance is suspect and ineffective.
