Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc – 6 5 – ar


valid until 2018/1/23

Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc

Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc

Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc

Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc

Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc

14.03.2018 – Latest News 18 Aug Is the issue in the charge covered by the EEO statutes? The built-in capturing tool analyzes internal structure of captured windows or web forms and automatically creates numbered annotations for all significant GUI elements:

Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc amante nicky

Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc

What’s New?

1. 1For example, the head of a significant and substantial local or regional operation of a corporation such as a major production facilitybut not the head of a minor branch, would be covered by the term “bona fide executive. The critical factors in determining whether a tribally owned business is exempt are whether it performs essentially governmental functions on the tribe’s behalf and whether it is integrated with and controlled by the tribe.
2. 10 Guiberson Oil Tools Div. The Commission has entered into a revised memorandum of understanding MOU with the Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, intended to enhance the enforcement of prohibitions against compensation discrimination and prevent duplication of effort.http://softik.org/4videosoft-archos-video-converter-4-0-02-7/The fact that there was no state agency decision does not affect whether preclusion would apply. Dennis Crane Ed Ward:

3. 10 If you have already published a review of the Dr. Equitable tolling may be appropriate if a charge is untimely because the EEOC or a FEPA made misleading statements to the charging party or mishandled the processing of the charge. http://softik.org/zte-axon-battery/ http://softik.org/zte-axon-nougat/A charging party may allege that a reasonable accommodation was denied by a covered entity for a religious observance or practice. CP received a public hearing regarding her claim that included the following rights:.

Related stories

Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc

4. 2 An employer operating abroad that is incorporated in the United States will generally have sufficient ties to the United States to be deemed an American employer. Even if someone in a particular position is not covered, consideration by an employer of its own employees for such positions may constitute a term, condition, or privilege of employment.Dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic scFor a multi-author environment a scalable documentation method like DITA is more suitable.

5. 2 Because the charge is filed under the ADA, it is not necessary that Respondent be a covered employer. For further discussion of this issue, refer to Section 8:

6. 8 The statutory language reflects congressional intent to cover an employer that meets the statutory requirements and is in the position to interfere with an individual’s employment with another employer. While the requirements for preclusion vary from state to state, states usually have the following requirements for claim preclusion:.

7. 3 However, in some cases, such an employer may allege that it is party to a treaty that permits it to prefer its own nationals for certain positions. Sign Up at atlassian.

Juegos gratis dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc kilos una

It’s a funny thing about help authoring software – the tools that we use to write the help documentation have generally not evolved at the same pace as the stuff we’re documenting. So, as the software that we’re explaining gets more and more complicated, we’re still stuck with the same tools that require us to map out our topics, figure out what’s important, dissect each screenshot, and so on.

With complex applications, you end up spending most of your time researching and less time writing. What if I told you that there’s help authoring software that will write help documentation for you?

That all you needed to do was to introduce this app to your software interface, and the documentation would automatically create topics that you could simply flesh out?

Explain is an automated help authoring tool that produces your choice of output formats – CHM, HTML, online manuals, and even printed documentation. Explain analyzes the structure of your software’s screens and forms and automatically generates numbered annotations for each GUI element – every button, icon, field, menu, and toolbar.

As the help author, your job just got a lot easier. All you need to do is add the descriptive text to each annotation to explain each function. Explain condenses hours of work into just a few minutes!

Explain will astound with with its flexibility. The output files that are explain by Dr. The email you entered is already receiving Daily Bits Emails!

Buy Now I Want This. WindowsXP,Vista 64 bit7 64 bit. Screenshots Website Virus Scan. This promotion includes the following: Explain Regular License v5. Shave hours off of the task of help authoring by automatically generating topics based on GUI elements.

Produce documentation that can be invoked by a huge variety of programming languages. Export your documentation to PDF format. Work with the user interface in 9 languages. You can download and install a free trial of this software before purchasing Download available for: After you purchase Dr.

Explain it may be used indefinitely. Explain is licensed per userso if more people are going to use Dr. Explain you will need to purchase additional copies. Upgrades to future versions of the software will be free for minor versions only.

Support is provided for the lifetime of the product. Prices do not necessarily include taxes, which will vary by country. Review what others have to say Even developers who know good design don’t often have much practice with InDesign or similar programs, so any sort of layout project–like creating software documentation–can be tremendously time-consuming.

Explain can help, and this app just received a couple dozen improvements and fixes to bring it up to version 2. Explain can save you countless hours of copying, pasting, linking, and other design busywork by automatically capturing screens from your software, then generating interactive screenshots complete with callouts and links for all your window controls.

Very impressive piece of software! I was impressed with this tool. I bought and registered the software. Explain is a help authoring program with a focus on visually describing the Graphical User Interfaces GUI of programs.

It is an excellent files for easily creating those “Quick Start” guides that have lots of screenshots of the program and help you learn where everything resides in a program.

It is also great for detailed user manuals that document all of the features and options reachable through a program’s GUI through highly annotated screenshots.

Explain’s well thought-out design and intuitive workflow means even the default configuration produces attractive user-friendly interactive documentation with a minimal amount of fuss.

Explain is, without question, an awesome piece of software. The guys behind Dr. Explain have created a simple and powerful problem solver. The problem, of create, is how to quickly create Help Documentation.

Their solution is the best I’ve seen. So go get it, try it out. You’ll see what I mean. Explain presents automatic automated approach to creating very comprehensive help files quickly.

Explain captures windows from a live WindowsR-based application and creates screenshots as you would expect, but help it analyzes the window content, enumerates the screens, and attaches numbered callouts to all the significant elements.

All captured windows are stored in a single project file. You can group them by modules, and when something changes, you can update individual windows, add new screenshots, and update control references.

You don’t need to recreate the whole sequence of windows. Explain, you can customize the structure of the menus, screen layout, colors, and callout details. Then you just export the project to HTML.

You get instant online help complete with index page, menus, hyperlinked callouts, and professional screens all formatted and ready to upload to your server. Ed Ward I’ve examined Dr.

Explain closely and it looks incredibly powerful as well as intuitive. The examples illustrate a wide range of manuals use cases. I intend to purchase the Ultima license for two users.

I am also considering the Premium support for one of the users for one year. Is the Premium support available at the BDJ discount? If so, how do I purchase that option.

Jan 5 at Dennis Crane Ed Ward: Thank you for your pleasant words. 473, our standard support is also very responsive and we do our best to help any user as fast as possible. Nico Westerdale Great News!

BitsDuJour Admin – Jan 6 and

Mac dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc 3ds safe

Moreover, when the documentation is ready, you can publish it on the Tiwri cloud server directly from Dr. Latest News 18 Aug SpirtU. These benefits are “significant remuneration” sufficient to create an employment relationship between CP and Respondent. Example 2 – On March 1,CP, a year-old woman, learned that she was denied a promotion in the Office of Research and Development, and that the position was awarded to a year-old man with similar qualifications.

Free dr explain 4 2 473 create help files documentation and manuals with automatic sc down with the

Upgrades to future versions of the software will be free for minor versions only. Support is provided for the lifetime of the product. Prices do not necessarily include taxes, which will vary by country.

Review what others have to say Even developers who know good design don’t often have much practice with InDesign or similar programs, so any sort of layout project–like creating software documentation–can be tremendously time-consuming.

Explain can help, and this app just received a couple dozen improvements and fixes to bring it up to version 2. Explain can save you countless hours of copying, pasting, linking, and other design busywork by automatically capturing screens from your software, then generating interactive screenshots complete with callouts and links for all your window controls.

Very impressive piece of software! I was impressed with this tool. I bought and registered the software. Explain is a help authoring program with a focus on visually describing the Graphical User Interfaces GUI of programs.

It is an excellent tools for easily creating those “Quick Start” guides that have lots of screenshots of the program and help you learn where everything resides in a program. It is also great for detailed user manuals that document all of the features and options reachable through a program’s GUI through highly annotated screenshots.

Explain’s well thought-out design and intuitive workflow means even the default configuration produces attractive user-friendly interactive documentation with a minimal amount of fuss.

Explain is, without question, an awesome piece of software. The guys behind Dr. Explain have created a simple and powerful problem solver. The problem, of course, is how to quickly create Help Documentation.

Their solution is the best I’ve seen. So go get it, try it out. You’ll see what I mean. Explain presents an automated approach to creating very comprehensive help files quickly. Explain captures windows from a live WindowsR-based application and creates screenshots as you would expect, but then it analyzes the window content, enumerates the screens, and attaches numbered callouts to all the significant elements.

All captured windows are stored in a single project file. You can group them by modules, and when something changes, you can update individual windows, add new screenshots, and update control references.

You don’t need to recreate the whole sequence of windows. Explain, you can customize the structure of the menus, screen layout, colors, and callout details. Then you just export the project to HTML.

You get instant online help complete with index page, menus, hyperlinked callouts, and professional screens all formatted and ready to upload to your server. Ed Ward I’ve examined Dr.

Explain closely and it looks incredibly powerful as well as intuitive. The examples illustrate a wide range of potential use cases. I intend to purchase the Ultima license for two users.

I am also considering the Premium support for one of the users for one year. In most circumstances, individuals who are partners, officers, members of boards of directors, or major shareholders will not qualify as employees.

The investigator should determine whether the individual acts independently and participates in managing the organization, or whether the individual is subject to the organization’s control.

The following factors should be considered:. Example 1 – CP works for an accounting firm and has the title of partner. The firm pays CP a salary, and CP is supervised by an individual at a higher level.

CP receives a share of the firm s profits in addition to his salary, but he does not have any input into decisions made by the firm, which are made by higher-level partners. While CP has the title of partner, he is in fact an employee.

Example 2 – CP is an officer with Respondent, a small corporation. She is the head of one of the corporation s divisions and has no supervisor, although her actions are reviewed by the board of directors.

She does not draw a salary, but receives a share of the profits made by Respondent. CP has the right to vote on decisions taken by Respondent, although her vote does not count as much as those of other individuals.

CP is not an employee, and therefore is not protected by the EEO statutes. Former employees are protected by the EEO statutes when they are subjected to discrimination arising from the former employment relationship.

An applicant to, or a participant in, a training or apprenticeship program is protected against discrimination with respect to admission to, or participation in, the training or apprenticeship program, regardless of whether the individual is an “employee.

Example – CP 1, CP 2, and CP 3 were participants in a training program provided by Respondent, and they were each removed from the program for refusing the sexual advances of the program s director.

CP 1 is an employee of Respondent, and was required by Respondent to take the training. CP 2 is not an employee of Respondent, but took the training because it is required for a position with Respondent for which CP 2 would like to apply.

CP 3 is taking the course because she wants to learn more about the subject matter covered by the training to help her obtain a position with an employer other than Respondent.

Individuals who are employed in the United States 82 are protected by the EEO statutes regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. Claims of discrimination based on citizenship status or unfair document practices are covered by the Immigration Reform and Control Act, and are within the jurisdiction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at the Department of Justice.

Although the personal staff of elected officials are protected under the EEO laws, there are limitations on a private lawsuit against a state under the ADEA. For a discussion of this issue, refer to note and accompanying text, below.

Example 1 – CP, a deputy sheriff, performed primarily clerical and secretarial duties, including serving subpoenas, typing complaints and reports, handling detectives telephone calls and correspondence, and assigning case files.

The position was created and compensation was provided pursuant to state law. CP did not occupy a high place in the chain of command. She was not under the sheriff s personal direction, and promotion requests were brought to the sheriff’s subordinate.

There was no evidence that CP had a highly confidential and sensitive relationship with the sheriff. Under these circumstances, CP was not a member of the sheriff s personal staff.

Therefore, a charge filed by CP would be processed pursuant to the procedures in 29 C. The Commissioner is exempt from State X’s civil service laws, and the individual selected for the position is personally appointed by the Governor.

The HAC is an arm of the state s Executive Department, and was created by the legislature to encourage fair treatment of, and to prevent discrimination against, the state’s citizens.

The HAC has the authority to make rules and regulations, to formulate policies that effectuate the purposes of State X’s human affairs laws, and to make recommendations in furtherance of those policies.

These are all policymaking functions. As the head of the HAC, the Commissioner plays a major role in formulating policies and having them accepted by the legislature. Therefore, the individual in the position of Commissioner is an appointee on the policymaking level and is covered under section Although the ADEA generally prohibits involuntary retirement, it specifically permits the compulsory retirement of any employee in a “bona fide executive or a high policymaking position” who has attained the age of An individual who holds two or more positions during the two-year period is still subject to the exemption if both positions are executive or high policymaking positions.

However, if an employer transfers an employee from a position that falls within the exemption to another position that does not fall within the exemption, it cannot compel the employee to retire.

The determination of whether an individual is a bona fide executive rests on the functions performed by that employee, regardless of salary. An employer seeking to demonstrate that an individual is a “bona fide executive” must establish the following: The exemption does not apply to middle-management employees, only to top-level employees who exercise substantial managerial authority over a significant number of employees and a large volume of business.

For example, the head of a significant and substantial local or regional operation of a corporation such as a major production facility , but not the head of a minor branch, would be covered by the term “bona fide executive.

The term “high policymaking position” refers to certain top-level employees who are not “bona fide executives,” but who nonetheless play a significant role in developing and implementing corporate policy.

For example, a chief economist or chief research scientist may have little line authority, but still have a significant impact on policy decisions by making recommendations to top-level executives based upon the evaluation of economic or scientific trends.

CP reported directly to the CEO, had direct access to the bank’s decisionmakers, and attended weekly meetings of the Senior Officers Group. In addition, he alone was responsible for monitoring state and local federal legislative and regulatory developments, recommending policies to ensure compliance with them, and working closely with state legislators on legislation important to the savings bank industry.

He also monitored and coordinated important tax litigation involving the bank, including recommending legal counsel, and coordinated bank policy on interest rates for passbook savings accounts.

CP falls within the exemption for high policymakers, and therefore, Respondent may require his retirement at age Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank , 54 F. Example 2 – CP files a charge after being required to retire from his position as Chief Labor Counsel of a corporation upon reaching the age of CP was an in-house attorney specializing in labor law, and exercised relatively minor supervisory duties over four other labor law attorneys.

He was far removed from the head of the Legal Department, being one of six attorneys who reported to one of eight Assistant General Counsel, who, in turn, reported to the General Counsel.

CP also had only a modest impact on policy, had virtually no access to the high policymaking levels of management, and attended meetings of certain committees primarily for the purpose of providing legal advice.

Respondent was not permitted to compel CP’s retirement because he did not qualify as a bona fide executive or high policymaker. This figure applies regardless of the date of retirement and is not adjusted to account for inflation.

Payment of benefits must begin within 60 days of the effective date of retirement unless the employee elects to defer receipt of benefits beyond expiration of the day period.

In calculating the value of benefits, only amounts provided by the employer and earnings thereon under the terms of a pension, profit-sharing, savings, or deferred compensation plan are counted.

Amounts attributable to Social Security, employee contributions, contributions of prior employers, and rollover contributions are excluded. For further guidance on calculating the retirement benefit under the exemption for bona fide executives and high policymakers, refer to 29 C.

The ADEA exempts certain hiring and discharge decisions pertaining to firefighters and law enforcement officers that are made pursuant to a state or local law. Example – Pursuant to a local ordinance passed in , CP was discharged from her position as a firefighter in March upon reaching the retirement age of Because the law was not in effect on March 3, , or enacted after September 30, , the discharge decision does not fall under the exemption.

The ADEA does not apply to federally funded or state programs designed to enhance employment of individuals with “special employment problems. The requirements for coverage for each of these entities are discussed below.

A state or local government employer is covered under the ADEA regardless of its number of employees. Importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled that under the ADEA, private age discrimination suits against states are impermissible unless the state waives its sovereign immunity.

Therefore, investigators should continue to take charges against states under the ADEA. To be covered, an employer must also be engaged in an “industry affecting commerce”; however, this requirement is rarely at issue, and it can be assumed that an employer having the requisite number of employees for the relevant time frame will also meet the commerce requirement.

A covered employer also includes an agent of an employer that meets the requirements under the appropriate statute. Under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA, an employer is covered if it has an employment relationship with the requisite number of employees for the relevant number of weeks, regardless of the daily work schedules of the individual employees.

An individual is counted as an employee for each working day after hire and until employment terminates. To count employees, determine the number of employees on an employer s payroll; exclude individuals who are not employees, e.

Add to that figure any other individuals who have an employment relationship with the employer, such as temporary or other staffing firm workers. Where a charge is filed during the early part of the calendar year, it may be necessary to wait until later during the same year to assess employer coverage.

In determining whether the week requirement is met, only calendar weeks when the employer had the requisite number of employees for each workday of that week are counted. However, the 20 weeks need not be consecutive.

The employer is not required to have the statutory number of employees at the time of the alleged violation or before it, as long as the requirement is met by the end of the calendar year in which the discrimination occurred.

For example, a newly formed company may have been in operation for only a short period at the time that a disputed action transpired. However, it would be covered if it met the week requirement during the remainder of the same calendar year.

Example – CP filed a charge alleging that she was not hired because of her sex and age on March 1, A review of Respondent’s personnel records reveals the following:. The records reveal that Respondent had 15 or more employees for at least 20 calendar weeks during , the year during which the alleged discrimination occurred.

Therefore, it is a covered employer under Title VII. However, it is not covered by the ADEA because it did not have 20 or more employees for at least 20 weeks. EPA coverage is extremely broad.

There are a few narrow exemptions for employees in certain professions. If an employer does not have the minimum number of employees to meet the statutory requirement, it is still covered if it is part of an “integrated enterprise” that, overall, meets the requirement.

An integrated enterprise is one in which the operations of two or more employers are considered so intertwined that they can be considered the single employer of the charging party.

The separate entities that form an integrated enterprise are treated as a single employer for purposes of both coverage and liability. If a charge is filed against one of the entities, relief can be obtained from any of the entities that form part of the integrated enterprise.

The factors to be considered in determining whether separate entities should be treated as an integrated enterprise are:. The purpose of these factors is to establish the degree of control exercised by one entity over the operation of another entity.

All of the factors should be considered in assessing whether separate entities constitute an integrated enterprise, but it is not necessary that all factors be present, nor is the presence of any single factor dispositive.

The primary focus should be on centralized control of labor relations. It should be noted that while this issue often arises where there is a parent-subsidiary relationship, a parent-subsidiary relationship is not required for two companies to be considered an integrated enterprise.

Jane Smith is its president and sole proprietor. She is also the president and sole proprietor of three other computer training centers, and of Computer Training, Inc. Smith is personally involved in the management of each of these companies and makes personnel decisions for the training centers in her capacity as president of CTI and as president of the individual centers.

CTI pays the bills for each of the training centers, handles payroll, and negotiates contracts for the centers. CTI created a personnel handbook for use by each of the training centers.

The profits of the individual training centers are pooled into one bank account in the name of CTI, which maintains a centralized management account allowing the profits of more successful training centers to cover the losses of less successful ones.

Under these circumstances, ABC, CTI, and the other training centers are an integrated enterprise, and should be considered a single employer for purposes of coverage and liability under the EEO statutes.

A charge must be filed against each employer to pursue a claim against that employer. To determine whether a respondent is covered, count the number of individuals employed by the respondent alone and the employees jointly employed by the respondent and other entities.

ABC is the sole employer of 17 employees. ABC also employs 5 employees who are jointly employed by Smith. Smith is the sole employer of 12 employees. An entity is a covered employment agency if it regularly procures employees for at least one covered employer, whether or not it receives compensation for those services.

Respondent also regularly procures employees for XYZ Corp. Therefore, Respondent is a covered employment agency, and is prohibited from discriminating in any of its referral and procurement activities, including those conducted with ABC, a non-covered employer.

Example 2 – CP 1 files a charge alleging that she was not hired because of her religion by Respondent, an employment agency with 12 employees. CP 2 files a charge alleging that she was not referred by Respondent for a position with Smith Corp.

Respondent regularly procures employees for Smith Corp. Therefore, Respondent is covered with respect to the claim raised by CP 1 and with respect to the claim raised by CP 2. It has 15 or more members 25 or more under the ADEA or maintains a hiring hall which procures employees for at least one covered employer.

This latter basis for union coverage will generally bring a union representing federal employees under the EEO statutes. Most labor organizations, including those representing federal employees, are covered under at least one of the above definitions of “labor organization.

Agents of labor organizations may also be covered. However, this position has generally been rejected by the courts. An unfair labor practice charge against a postal union is filed with the NLRB.

Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA prohibit a covered labor organization from engaging in discriminatory membership practices and other discriminatory activities related to its status as a labor organization, e.

The EPA prohibits a labor organization from causing or attempting to cause a covered employer to violate the statute. A covered entity is as liable for the actions of its agents as it would be for actions taken by itself.

An agent is an individual or entity having the authority to act on behalf of, or at the direction of, the covered entity. An entity that is an agent of a covered entity is liable for the discriminatory actions it takes on behalf of the covered entity.

Most of the federal appeals courts have held that supervisors may not be held individually liable for discrimination because they do not meet the definition of the term “employer. The investigator should also consult with the legal unit regarding potential charges against state officials for injunctive relief.

See note and accompanying text, above discussing charges against states. Of course, a sole proprietor who employs at least 15 or 20 employees depending upon the applicable statute would be liable as a covered “employer.

In addition to prohibiting employers from discriminating against their own employees, Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA prohibit a covered third-party employer from discriminatorily interfering with an individual’s employment opportunities with another employer.

This kind of liability is commonly known as “third-party interference. The EPA only protects individuals who are employed by the respondent employer from sex-based compensation discrimination because it only prohibits discrimination against the respondent’s own employees.

For the third-party interference theory to be available against an employer, two requirements must be met:. A federal agency may not be held liable for discriminating against another party’s employees under Title VII or the ADEA because those statutes only prohibit federal agencies from discriminating against “employees” and applicants for employment.

A federal agency may be held liable for discriminating against another party’s employees based on disability , however, because the Rehabilitation Act incorporates section of the ADA, which prohibits interference with any individual’s rights under the chapter.

CP files a charge alleging that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex by asking ABC to replace her with a younger male director. If Respondent exercises sufficient control over CP, it may also be liable as a joint employer.

Respondent is a covered employer under Title VII. Of course, CP may also have a claim against her own employer if, after bringing the harassment to its attention, it failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.

Example 3 – Respondent is an insurance company that provides insurance for the employees of Smith, Inc. CP, an employee of Smith, Inc. Under the circumstances, CP has an ADA claim against Respondent for providing discriminatory insurance benefits arising out of his employment relationship with Smith, Inc.

Because the charge is filed under the ADA, it is not necessary that Respondent be a covered employer. The third-party interference theory generally cannot be applied to a state agency that licenses or certifies individuals to work in a particular profession under the EEO statutes where it is exercising its police power in granting and denying licenses.

Example – A state commission issues licenses to and rents stall space for horse trainers. Under such circumstances, the commission would not be covered as an employer in its capacity as a licensor but might be covered under the third-party interference theory in its capacity as a renter of stall spaces, if it met other requirements for coverage.

New Hampshire Racing Comm n, F. Section of Title VII, which is incorporated in the ADA, authorizes the Commission to take enforcement action whenever it has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice that denies others the rights provided by the statute, and to investigate a charge of such a pattern or practice of discrimination.

For example, an allegation of selective enforcement of a licensing requirement against African-Americans or some other protected class would constitute an allegation of pattern or practice discrimination covered by Section A prison does not have an employment relationship with its own prisoners.

Thus, its supervision of prisoners performing work in the prison is not subject to the EEO statutes, even if the work is being performed for monetary or other compensation.

A business that acquires another may be subject to liability under the EEO statutes for discrimination that was committed by the entity that it succeeded, even if the successor is not named in the charge.

Whether the successor should be held liable for the discriminatory acts of its predecessors must be determined on a case-by-case basis, and requires a balancing of the interests of the employer and the employee.

Generally, the successor can only be held liable if it had notice of the charge and the predecessor is unable to provide relief. Example 1 – CP alleges that Respondent discharged him from his position as a salesman based on his national origin.

Respondent sells its sales operations to ABC Corporation, but remains in business as a manufacturer. CP seeks back pay for the period from his discharge through the date he got another position with XYZ Corporation.

Because Respondent is able to provide relief, ABC should not be held liable. Example 2 – Same as above except that CP seeks reinstatement. Because only ABC can provide reinstatement, it can be held liable and can be required to provide that remedy as long as it had notice of the charge.

Example 3 – CP alleges that she was sexually harassed by a supervisory employee of Respondent, an electronics manufacturer. After the sale, Respondent is declared bankrupt.

ABC retains most of the employees who formerly worked for Respondent and continues Respondent’s electronics manufacturing business. Under these circumstances, the requirements for successor liability are met, and Smith Corp.

A foreign employer doing business in the United States is generally covered by the EEO statutes to the same extent as an American employer. However, in some cases, such an employer may allege that it is party to a treaty that permits it to prefer its own nationals for certain positions.

If this defense is raised, the investigator should determine the following:. In determining whether a U. An employer operating abroad that is incorporated in the United States will generally have sufficient ties to the United States to be deemed an American employer.

Where an employer is not incorporated in the United States or it is not incorporated at all, e. Factors to consider include the following:. The EEO statutes also prohibit discrimination by a foreign employer that is controlled by an American employer.

The determination of whether an American employer controls a foreign employer is based on the following: Title VII and the ADA do not apply to American Indian tribes, which are excluded from the definition of “employer,” but may apply to a tribally owned business.

The critical factors in determining whether a tribally owned business is exempt are whether it performs essentially governmental functions on the tribe’s behalf and whether it is integrated with and controlled by the tribe.

Title VII and the ADA do not apply to a bona fide private membership club other than a labor organization which is exempt from taxation under section c of the Internal Revenue Code of An organization is deemed a bona fide private membership club if it meets each of the following requirements:.

The presence or absence of any one of these factors is not determinative, however, and the question as to whether an organization is private must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, in determining whether the requirement of meaningful conditions of limited membership is met, the Commission will consider both the size of the membership, including the existence of any limitations on its size, and membership eligibility requirements.

Example 1 – Respondent was founded to promote the popularity of golf as a recreational activity. It has members, who provide all operating revenue. It is exempt from taxation under section c of the Internal Revenue Code.

Members have free use of the organization’s facilities, including the golf course, health spa, meeting rooms, and cafeteria. Nonmembers may only use the facilities at the request and in the presence of a member.

Respondent has admitted most but not all applicants. Example 2 – Same facts as above, except that nonmembers may use the facilities without a sponsoring member by paying an extra fee.

Applicants for membership need only know one current member, and Respondent has admitted all applicants for membership. Respondent has not established that it is private, nor that it has meaningful conditions of limited membership; therefore, it is not a bona fide private membership club.

Public international organizations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations are generally not covered by the EEO statutes because of immunity conferred under international and United States law.

An organization will be immune if is included on the list of organizations entitled to immunity set out in the International Organizations Immunities Act unless immunity has been waived by the organization or by Presidential Executive Order.

If it is unclear whether an organization’s immunity has been waived, the charge should be referred to the legal unit for a determination of whether the EEO statutes can be applied to the organization.

Title VII does not apply to discrimination by a religious organization on the basis of religion in hiring and discharge. The exemption applies to an organization whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.

The exemption applies to all positions; however, discrimination is not permitted on any basis other than religion. A separate “ministerial” exception based on the First Amendment prevents interference between a religious institution and its ordained clergy, an individual effectively acting in that capacity, or an individual intimately involved in religious indoctrination.

An entity on or near an American Indian reservation may grant preferential treatment to a Native American living on or near the reservation with respect to a publicly announced employment practice.

Employment practices in which preferential treatment may be granted include hiring, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, and reduction in force. The exemption permits employers to prefer Native Americans over non-Native Americans, but not to prefer members of one tribe over members of another tribe.

Title VII does not apply to a decision taken because of a veterans’ preference created by a federal, state, or local law. Title VII does not prohibit termination, or refusal to hire or refer for jobs where an individual does not meet the requirements for a position that are imposed in the interest of national security under any security program in effect under statute or Executive Order.

If the respondent establishes that such a security clearance is required, Commission review is limited. The Commission can review whether the grant, denial, or revocation of a security clearance was conducted in a discriminatory manner.

Thus, the Commission can review whether procedural requirements in making security clearance determinations were followed without regard to an individual’s protected status.

For instance, the Commission could review a claim that the respondent followed certain procedural requirements when revoking the clearances of white individuals but failed to follow those procedures when revoking the clearances of Asian individuals.

Ordinarily, a charge must be filed within the statutory limitations period. The filing deadline can occasionally be extended when equitable considerations demand or when the parties agree to waive the deadline.

Under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA, a charging party must file a charge with the EEOC within either or days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, depending upon whether the alleged violation occurred in a jurisdiction that has a state or local fair employment practices agency FEPA with the authority to grant or seek relief.

Because most jurisdictions have FEPAs, the limitations period will usually be days. However, an investigator should check with the legal unit to determine the applicable period when uncertain.

Therefore, CP’s charge was timely with respect to her sex discrimination claim but untimely for preserving her private suit rights with respect to her age discrimination claim.

While the time frame for filing a private civil action is not a threshold issue in the processing of an EEOC charge, an investigator should notify the charging party about the time frame and requirements for filing in federal court.

It is especially important that the investigator notify the charging party of the filing period for an EPA civil action because the filing of an EPA charge does not toll the time frame for going to court.

The NRTS will be issued when the Commission has dismissed the charge or failed to enter into a conciliation agreement. An individual can request an NRTS days after the filing of a charge.

The EEOC’s regulations provide that an individual may request an NRTS before the expiration of the day period if the Commission determines that it is unlikely that it will complete its administrative processing of the charge within days of the filing date.

Therefore, before issuing an NRTS prior to expiration of the day period, an investigator should determine whether courts in that jurisdiction have recognized that the EEOC has authority to do so.

If not, an alternative would be to ask the respondent to waive the day period. Similarly, under the ADEA, an aggrieved person must sue within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC’s notice that the charge is dismissed or that the Commission proceedings are otherwise terminated.

However, receipt of a notice of right to sue is not a condition for bringing a private suit under the ADEA. An aggrieved person may bring an ADEA suit anytime after 60 days have elapsed from the filing of a timely charge or earlier if EEOC has attempted and failed to conciliate the matter.

If such a case arises, the investigator should consult the legal unit. Because a charge need not be filed with the EEOC before a lawsuit is filed in court, an individual may file an EPA lawsuit anytime within two years after the alleged unlawful compensation practice or, in the case of a willful violation, within three years.

The filing of an EPA charge does not toll the time frame for going to court. Morgan , the Supreme Court ruled that the timeliness of a charge depends upon whether it involves a discrete act or a hostile work environment claim.

A discrete act, such as failure to hire or promote, termination, or denial of transfer, is independently actionable if it is the subject of a timely charge. Example 1 – On March 1, , CP received written notification that he would be discharged effective April 30, Example 2 – On January 1, , CP was notified that his demotion was being proposed.

On February 1, , CP was notified that his demotion would be effective on March 1, Example 3 – On January 1, , CP was injured on the job, and she remained unable to work for many months.

In September, her doctor released her to return to work. When CP reported to work on September 15, , she was notified that her employment had been terminated on August 1, , and that there was no position available for her.

Repeated occurrences of the same discriminatory employment action can be challenged as long as one discriminatory act occurred within the charge filing period. Example 4 – Robert, a hearing-impaired federal employee, requests a sign language interpreter for each weekly office planning session.

The request was denied on March 1, Robert continues to attend the meetings without an interpreter, but on July 1, , Robert’s supervisor comments that Robert doesn’t seem to be keeping up with the office’s priority planning.

Robert immediately contacts an EEO Counselor about the denial of accommodation. Robert has initiated the EEO process in a timely manner. Example 5 – CP applied for promotion to a supervisory position on four occasions over a three-year period.

Two months after the most recent denial, he filed a charge alleging that he was denied a promotion each time because of his national origin. The investigator notes that, while the promotion decisions were each made by the same manager and were for positions in the same department, only the last promotion decision occurred within the filing period.

Because denial of promotion is a discrete act, only the final promotion decision is timely. However, the investigator may use the untimely promotion decisions as background evidence in evaluating whether the timely decision was discriminatory.

Example 1 – CP files a charge on September 3, , alleging that he was subjected to derogatory age-based comments by his supervisor and coworkers over two and a half years. The last incident occurred on July 15, The investigation reveals that the incidents are related and constitute a single hostile work environment claim and that at least one of the incidents occurred within the filing period.

All of the incidents that make up the hostile work environment should be considered in determining liability and damages related to the claim. Whether a particular incident is part of a hostile work environment claim is a fact-specific determination.

An incident may be part of a hostile work environment even if it is also a discrete act. If a discrete act that occurred before the filing period is part of a timely hostile work environment claim, the charging party may only challenge the act as part of the hostile work environment claim.

For example, if a pre-filing period demotion is related to a pattern of abusive conduct or language that continued into the filing period, then the demotion may be considered in assessing whether the employee was subjected to a hostile work environment and determining the appropriate remedy for that violation.

However, because no timely challenge was made to the demotion, it is not independently actionable, and the charging party would not be entitled to relief, such as back pay or instatement, for the demotion itself.

Example 2 – On March 15, , CP files a charge alleging that his supervisor subjected him to discriminatory, race-based conduct between CP’s date of hire, January 1, , and January 15, , when CP received a transfer.

Specifically, CP alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and that he was discriminatorily denied two bonuses, one in December and another in December The investigator determines that both bonus decisions were related to a pattern of harassment that continued into the day filing period.

Therefore, both bonus decisions are part of CP’s hostile work environment claim and may be considered in determining whether the harassing conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, and if so, what relief is appropriate.

In addition, because a bonus decision is a discrete act, CP could recover back pay for the second bonus decision. CP could not, however, recover back pay for the first bonus decision because it occurred before the filing period and is, therefore, not separately actionable.

However, that first decision may be relevant background evidence for determining whether the second bonus decision was discriminatory. Example 3 – May 15, , CP files a charge alleging that, beginning early in , her supervisor, John, subjected her to a pattern of sexual innuendo that created a hostile work environment and that the conduct continued until she filed her charge.

She also alleged that she was denied a promotion in March because of her sex. Because the denial of promotion occurred outside the filing period, it is not actionable as a discrete act.

However, CP alleges that it was part of the pattern of harassment. The investigation shows that John liked CP and thought that he was engaged in an “innocent flirtation” with her, that he had engaged in similar inappropriate conduct with several other women whom he promoted, that there were twenty applicants for the promotion, and that the selection decision was not made by John alone, but by a five-member panel of which he was the junior member.

The investigator concludes that the promotion denial was not part of the pattern of harassment. Discriminatory acts that are part of a pattern or practice of discrimination can be challenged as a single claim.

If the discriminatory pattern or practice continues into the filing period, all of the component acts of the pattern or practice will be timely, and relief can be recovered for any of those acts.

Example – In March , CP files a charge alleging that Respondent discriminates against African-American applicants to its apprenticeship program. According to CP, he has applied for the apprenticeship program repeatedly since its initiation in September but has never been selected.

The investigation reveals that African-American applicants for the apprenticeship program have been selected at a much lower rate than similarly qualified white applicants.

Because Respondent’s systematic discrimination against African-American applicants to the apprenticeship program constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination, all discriminatory selection decisions under the program are timely.

If a Title VII or ADA charge alleges that a seniority system was adopted for an intentionally discriminatory purpose, the filing period begins when any one of the following three events occurs: Payment of compensation is actionable if it is affected by either a discriminatory compensation decision or some other discriminatory practice.

Example – After working for the Respondent for nearly 10 years as a production supervisor, CP learns she is being paid less than the other four production supervisors in her department, who are all men.

The investigation shows that CP generally received lower pay raises than her male counterparts as the result of lower performance ratings, which CP alleges to have been discriminatory. Although these performance ratings and related pay raises all occurred more than days before CP filed her charge, they affected her pay within the filing period.

These time frames apply to all forms of compensation, including the payment of pension benefits. Thus, there are circumstances under which the charge should be accepted as timely even though the alleged violation transpired outside the limitations period.

The statutory time limits may be extended, or “tolled,” for equitable reasons where the charging party was understandably unaware of the EEO process or of important facts that should have led him or her to suspect discrimination.

Grounds for equitable tolling include the following:. Individuals who are represented by counsel during the relevant time frame will have difficulty establishing a right to tolling.

When equitable tolling is warranted, the limitations period does not automatically begin anew. Instead, the extension is for a “reasonable” period of time. In May, she learned that Respondent had hired only male accountants for the past three years.

She then suspected discrimination. The alleged discrimination took place in a jurisdiction with a day filing period. CP filed a charge on February 1, , more than days after being notified that she would not be hired, but less than days after she first reasonably suspected discrimination.

Absent other facts, the time frame would not be tolled. CP had more than a reasonable period of time between May and December 26, , the end of the original limitations period, during which to file a charge.

Sometimes, a charging party will be unaware of a possible EEO claim at the time of the alleged violation. Under such circumstances, the filing period should be tolled until the individual has, or should have, enough information to support a reasonable suspicion of discrimination.

Example 1 – On March 15, , CP, an African-American man, was notified by Respondent that he was not hired for an entry-level accountant position. In February , more than days later, CP learned that the selectee, a white woman, was substantially less qualified for the position than CP.

CP filed a charge of race and sex discrimination on March 15, The charge would be treated as timely because he filed promptly after acquiring information that led him to suspect discrimination.

Example 2 – On March 1, , CP, a year-old woman, learned that she was denied a promotion in the Office of Research and Development, and that the position was awarded to a year-old man with similar qualifications.

She subsequently applied for another promotion opportunity in the same office, and was notified in January that the position was awarded to a year-old woman with similar qualifications.

The second rejection prompted CP to suspect that she was being discriminated against because she was an older woman, and she filed a charge five weeks later, in February Tolling should apply, and she can challenge both promotion denials.

Because an individual’s ignorance must be excusable, the failure to act with “due diligence” in attempting to obtain vital information will preclude equitable tolling. Example – CP was discharged by Respondent on February 1, He suspected that the discharge was based on his age because he had heard his supervisor make comments about his, CP’s, age and had even complained to management about such comments.

Nonetheless, he did not file a charge until January , after learning that Respondent was being investigated for engaging in systemic age discrimination. The limitations period should not be tolled.

Under exceptional circumstances, mental incapacity can be grounds for equitably tolling the filing period. Example – CP was subjected to frequent incidents of sexual harassment leading to her resignation in January As a result of the harassment and resignation, CP suffered from depression, and she required psychiatric treatment.

For a period of about one year following her resignation, CP was unable work or to care for her children or home, and she spent most of her time sleeping. CP promptly consulted the lawyer and filed a charge.

Under these circumstances, the time frame should be tolled because mental incapacity prevented CP from exercising her legal rights. Equitable tolling may be appropriate if a charge is untimely because the EEOC or a FEPA made misleading statements to the charging party or mishandled the processing of the charge.

Merely utilizing an alternative forum, such as mediation, a negotiated grievance process, or an internal complaint procedure, does not extend the period for filing a charge.

Example 1 – CP was discharged on December 15, , from her position with Respondent. At the time of CP’s discharge, Respondent was not a federal contractor covered by Executive Order , so CP filed a charge with the wrong agency.

However, CP exhibited diligence by promptly responding to a request for clarification. Therefore, the filing period should be tolled. Example 2 – CP was demoted on January 15, , and filed a grievance alleging that the demotion violated Respondent’s internal procedures and that it was in retaliation for a prior EEOC charge filed by CP.

CP received a final grievance determination on November 15, , that was unfavorable. The filing period should not be tolled because CP elected to file a grievance, and she had the opportunity to have her claim heard in that forum.

The filing period can also be extended when the charging party’s delayed filing is attributable to active misconduct by the respondent intended to prevent timely filing, or actions that an employer should have known would cause a delay in filing.

The equitable estoppel doctrine generally presupposes that the charging party was aware of the facts that gave rise to the cause of action and might have filed earlier but for the respondent’s misconduct.

Example – CP was sexually harassed by her supervisor, leading to her resignation on March 1, CP contacted Respondent’s human resources department regarding the alleged violations, and was told that Respondent would conduct an internal review.

Respondent said that appropriate relief would be provided after the completion of the investigation and told CP that she did not have to file an EEOC charge until the internal investigation was complete.

On February 1, , Respondent notified CP that the investigation was complete and that it had concluded that CP was not sexually harassed. CP was dissatisfied with the results of the investigation and filed a charge on March 1, Under these circumstances, the time frame should be extended, and CP’s charge accepted as timely.

For example, the parties may agree to waive the limitations period so that they can engage in private negotiations. Standing to file a charge under the EEO statutes is very broad. A charge must allege that an adverse employment action was taken because of an individual’s membership in one or more protected classes.

Such a charge may be brought by an aggrieved person, a person filing on behalf of an aggrieved person, or an EEOC Commissioner. For example, a woman might file a charge alleging that her employer paid her less than her male coworkers, or a man with a hearing impairment might allege that he was not provided a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

A charge may be filed by a “tester,” an individual who applies for employment to test for discriminatory hiring practices, but does not intend to accept such employment, even if offered.

Example – CP, a Native American woman who works for Respondent, alleges that she was harmed by the Respondent’s practice of discarding resumes from applicants residing in predominantly African-American neighborhoods because she was denied the benefit of associating with African-Americans.

CP 2, a White man, alleges that he was not considered for employment by Respondent because he resides in a predominantly African-American neighborhood, and his resume was discarded.

Both CP 1 and CP 2 were harmed by Respondent’s discriminatory policy, and therefore, they both have standing. Under some circumstances, an organization has standing to file a charge as an “aggrieved person.

A charge can also be filed under any of the EEO statutes by an individual, agency, or organization “on behalf of” an aggrieved person or aggrieved persons. For example, a union, a civil rights organization, or an advocacy organization may file a charge on behalf of one of its constituents.

An “on behalf of” charge permits the aggrieved individual to remain anonymous while the charge is being processed by the Commission. Intake of Charges and Complaints.

The ADEA and the EPA do not specifically refer to Commissioner charges; however, the Commission can conduct directed investigations and litigation on its own initiative under those statutes, either concurrently with the processing of a charge or as a separate matter.

Intake of Commission Initiated Actions. Pursuant to the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion, an individual may not relitigate a particular claim or issue in federal court that has been decided by a prior federal or state court decision.

A state or federal agency decision that has not been reviewed by a court is not preclusive. Likewise, an unreviewed decision by an arbitrator or an unreviewed grievance decision is not preclusive.

However, the charging party may be bound by a voluntary , post-dispute agreement to arbitrate The charging party may also be bound by a settlement. If a claim or issue cannot be litigated in federal court, then it serves little purpose for the EEOC to investigate the claim or issue on the merits.

Thus, the Commission usually applies preclusion principles in the same manner as a federal court. A court decision has the potential of having a preclusive effect if it involved some of the same facts, or raised some of the same issues, in the EEOC charge.

Pursuant to the doctrine of claim preclusion, or “res judicata,” a federal court will dismiss a claim that was raised or could have been raised in a prior proceeding in a state or federal court.

A claim is the set of facts, and the alleged EEO violation arising from those facts, upon which a charge is based. For example, a charge might include the claim that the respondent violated Title VII by removing the charging party in retaliation for testifying on behalf of someone else who filed a charge.

If a prior court addressed the circumstances under which the charging party was removed and the charging party either raised or could have raised her Title VII retaliation claim, then claim preclusion might apply.

If a claimant failed to raise a claim in a prior court proceeding, the determination of whether claim preclusion applies usually depends upon whether the claimant could have raised the claim in the court proceeding.

However, in some instances, a state court’s jurisdiction might be restricted, preventing it from addressing a claim under the relevant EEO statute even if the claim reviewed by the court raises the same facts as in the EEOC charge.

Example 1 – After being discharged by Respondent, CP filed a claim with the state unemployment compensation board. The board denied the claim, finding that Respondent had sufficient cause to discharge CP.

CP appealed to state court, which upheld the board s decision based on an arbitrary and capricious standard, under which CP was prevented from raising any new claims.

Under the circumstances, CP’s claim that he was discharged based on his race would not be precluded. The claim was not decided in state court, nor could it have been because the court’s review did not permit CP to raise any new claims.

Example 2 – Same as above, except that the state court review was de novo so the court had jurisdiction to consider the race discrimination claim, and CP still failed to raise his discrimination claim.

Under these circumstances, CP would be precluded from bringing a discrimination charge because the claim could have been decided by the state court. Sometimes, a claim raised in a charge filed with the Commission will not be precluded by an earlier proceeding because the earlier proceeding ended before the Commission completed its processing and the statutory waiting period under the relevant EEO statute had not expired.

For example, unless the Commission completes its processing of a charge prior to the expiration of the day period, a Title VII claimant generally may not file a civil action until days after filing the charge.

Therefore, if the court issued a decision before the waiting period expired or the charging party was otherwise unable to amend the action in a timely manner to include the claim raised in the EEOC charge, then the court proceeding would not preclude the claim raised in the EEOC charge.

Example – CP filed a charge in State X with the unemployment commission after his employment with Respondent ended. He also filed a charge with the EEOC alleging that he was subjected to racial harassment by Respondent resulting in his constructive discharge.

The state unemployment commission denied the claim for unemployment compensation, finding that CP had insufficient grounds to quit. CP appealed to state court, and less than days after CP filed his EEOC charge, the court affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation.

Claim preclusion does not bar CP’s claim of constructive discharge in his EEOC charge because the state court decision was issued before the expiration of the day waiting period.

However, as discussed below in the section on “Issue Preclusion,” the state court decision may bar reconsideration of certain issues. Issue preclusion, also known as “collateral estoppel,” applies to an issue that was actually litigated in a prior state or federal court proceeding, and prevents litigation of the same issue in a subsequent proceeding.

For instance, if it was determined by an unemployment compensation board that there was “cause” for termination, and that determination was reviewed by a state court, then that issue cannot be relitigated.

However, a claimant can produce evidence of a mixed motive in the subsequent proceeding. Example – CP was discharged by Respondent, and appealed his removal to a state personnel board. The board found that the removal was justified for unsatisfactory performance.

The board’s decision was upheld by a state court, which lacked jurisdiction to consider new issues. CP would be precluded from relitigating whether his discharge was based on satisfactory performance; however, he could still try to establish, under a mixed-motive analysis, that his discharge was also based on unlawful discrimination.

A charging party can also make “offensive” use of issue preclusion. That is, a respondent may be precluded from relitigating an issue that was decided in a prior state or federal court case. For example, a respondent may be precluded from asserting legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for an employment action where prior litigation filed by another plaintiff challenging the same employment action has resolved the issue.

The requirements for claim or issue preclusion to apply depend upon the court that issued the prior decision. If the prior decision was issued by a state court, then preclusion depends upon the law of the state that issued the decision.

If the prior decision was issued by a federal court, then preclusion depends upon federal case law. In order to be preclusive in federal court, a state court decision must be preclusive in other courts of the state that issued the decision.

For example, a decision by a Texas state court would only be preclusive in federal court if it was also preclusive in Texas courts pursuant to Texas law. Any such state court decision is preclusive, assuming that due process requirements are met.

Thus, a state court decision may preclude an action in federal court even if the state court merely reviewed a state agency decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard, or the appeal to state court was instituted by the respondent and reversed a favorable agency decision, as long as such decision would be preclusive in other courts of the state that issued the decision.

While the requirements for preclusion vary from state to state, states usually have the following requirements for claim preclusion:. Issue preclusion applies to an issue that was actually litigated in the first action if certain requirements are met.

Most states require the following: The investigator should seek assistance from the legal unit in determining the applicable preclusion requirements and whether those requirements are met.

Even if the charging party alleges that the final judgment was erroneous, it would be preclusive if it met such due process requirements. CP filed a claim with her state’s human rights commission HRC alleging that she was removed because of her sex in violation of the state human rights act.

CP received a public hearing regarding her claim that included the following rights:. CP also had the right to judicial review of all administrative determinations to protect against procedural inadequacies and arbitrary and capricious administrative decisions.

Under these circumstances, the state proceeding satisfied due process requirements.