WPC( 2MBVRKZ3|x7jC:,hXj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\YnhXP2 - Z CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\YnhX@2Lv\pkB3|x'a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2kJvtea5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2    H  a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2   A  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2; a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2mIa6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2"!i3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2TeX=PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa prima facie case that the licensee violated our Equal Employment Opportunity Rule (EEO)  X- xRule, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080. The MO&O granted unconditionally the renewal application for  xKMOLTV, San Antonio, Texas, and denied the NAACP's petition to deny. Also before the  x{Commission are the licensee's opposition to the NAACP's application for review and the NAACP's reply thereto. For the reasons that follow, we deny the application for review.   x2. The NAACP argues that the Commission should have investigated the station's  x[employment practices, designated KMOLTV's renewal application for hearing, and denied the  xapplication. The NAACP also argues that the Commission should require licensees to use non xCensus labor force statistics, if necessary, to be aware of major demographic shifts in their labor  xforce, that we should change our processing guidelines, and that a different standard of review  xshould be used for large and small stations. In addition, the NAACP contends that the  xZCommission should investigate the licensee based upon the individual discrimination charge filed  xagainst the licensee by a former KMOLTV employee, George M. Burton. Attached to the  x[application for review was a copy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC)  xSeptember 1, 1994, letter dismissing Mr. Burton's charge, in which the EEOC held that Mr.  xBurton had failed to prove that he was discriminated against at KMOLTV. The EEOC found  xthat a station employee had made remarks of a "racial nature," though not to Mr. Burton directly.  xHowever, the EEOC further found that the station, upon notification of the remarks having been  xmade, "cautioned its employees by reiterating its policy that derogatory racial comments and  x-actions would not be tolerated in the workplace." In addition, the EEOC found that "no evidence  xwas revealed to indicate the indirect racial slurs were sufficiently pervasive as to create aX,+,,,)3 '#)s | X  xKpoisoned working environment that interfered with [Mr. Burton's] job" and no evidence indicated  xthat "[Mr. Burton's] working environment was so hostile, offensive, or intimidating, as to compel him to resign."   lx3. We find that the NAACP's argument that the Commission should require licensees to  xuse nonCensus labor force data and be aware of demographic changes is contrary to Commission  xiprecedent and without merit. The Commission has consistently used Census data as an objective  X_- xand uniformly applied criterion in our initial review of broadcasters' EEO programs. Community  XH- x]Television of Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd 4995, 4996 (1991). We reject the request to  xchange our processing guidelines and analysis of stations of different sizes. As we have stated  xbefore, the license renewal process is generally not the proper forum for us to change policies  X - xor to adopt new policies in this area. See Spectacor Broadcasting L.P., 9 FCC Rcd 1729, 1730 n.5 (1993). x   x4. Regarding allegations of employment discrimination, it is our policy that individual  xcharges of employment discrimination should be resolved in the first instance by the EEOC or  xother government agency and/or court established to enforce nondiscrimination laws. Under this  xpolicy, the Commission will take cognizance of any final determination of employment  Xb- x discrimination. See Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Communications  XK- x=Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 70 FCC 2d 2320, 2330 (1978)  X4- x("MOU"). See also, WNBCTV, 5 FCC Rcd 2049 (1990); KSDK, Inc., 85 FCC 2d 797 (1981),  X- xrecon. den., 88 FCC 2d 1443 (1982). In this case, the EEOC found that there was no  xdiscrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The  xZNAACP has submitted no evidence to warrant our further investigation of this matter. Moreover,  X- xthe Bureau properly found in the MO&O that there was no evidence that any part of our EEO Rule was violated.   |x5. After review of the application for review and its attachments, the EEOC's findings  xin Mr. Burton's discrimination charge, and all other arguments and evidence, we find that the  xNAACP has not shown that the Bureau's ruling was incorrect and, thus, no basis exists to warrant  xreview. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, the Application for Review filed on September 18, 1995, by the NAACP IS DENIED.   x6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Mass Media Bureau send by Certified Mail  X- xMReturn Receipt Requested copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to UTV of San Antonio, Inc. and the NAACP. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary