Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

EEOC Conciliation Efforts Subject to Narrow Judicial Review

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: June 10, 2015

Key Contacts

Back

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that courts do not have to take the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at its word with regard to whether the agency fulfilled its conciliation obligation in discrimination cases.

However, it found that the scope of judicial review is limited to whether the EEOC gave the employer notice of the charge and provided an opportunity to achieve voluntary compliance

The Legal Background

Prior to filing an employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC must first “endeavor to eliminate [the] alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” Once the EEOC determines that conciliation has failed, it may file an employment discrimination suit in federal court. However, “[n]othing said or done during” conciliation may be “used as evidence in a subsequent proceeding without written consent of the persons concerned.”

The Facts of the Case

Mach Mining LLC v. EEOC involved a sex discrimination charge against Mach Mining, LLC. Upon determining that reasonable cause existed to believe that the company had engaged in unlawful hiring practices, the EEOC sent a letter inviting Mach Mining and the complainant to participate in informal conciliation proceedings and notifying them that a representative would be contacting them to begin the process. About a year later, the EEOC sent Mach Mining another letter stating that it had determined that conciliation efforts had been unsuccessful. The agency subsequently filed a discrimination suit.

In responding to the suit, Mach Mining alleged that the EEOC had failed to conciliate in good faith. The EEOC maintained that its conciliation efforts were not subject to judicial review and that, regardless, the two letters it sent to Mach Mining provided adequate proof that it had fulfilled its statutory duty. While the district court disagreed with the EEOC, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned its decision, finding that the EEOC’s statutory conciliation obligation was unreviewable.

The Supreme Court’s Decision on Conciliation Efforts

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the EEOC’s conciliation efforts were open to judiciary scrutiny, although the scope is narrow.

In reaching its decision, the Court noted that it has recognized a “strong presumption” that Congress means to allow judicial review of administrative action. In addition, it found that although Congress gave the EEOC wide latitude to choose which informal methods to use during the conciliation process, it did not deprive courts of judicially manageable criteria by which to whether it fulfilled it statutory obligation.

With regard to the appropriate standard of review, the Court rejected the positions adopted by both the EEOC and Mach Mining. According to the Court:

The appropriate scope of judicial review of the EEOC’s conciliation activities is narrow, enforcing only the EEOC’s statutory obligation to give the employer notice and an opportunity to achieve voluntary compliance. This limited review respects the expansive discretion that Title VII gives the EEOC while still ensuring that it follows the law.

Under the Court’s standard, the EEOC must notify the employer about the specific discrimination allegation, including what the employer has done and which employees (or class of employees) have suffered. In addition, the EEOC must also attempt to engage the employer in a discussion in order to give the employer a chance to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice.

With regard to the proof required, the Court stated that a sworn affidavit from the EEOC stating that it has performed these obligations should be sufficient. If the employer provides concrete evidence that the EEOC did not provide the requisite information about the charge or attempt to engage in a discussion about conciliating the claim, a court may then conduct the fact-finding required to resolve that specific issue.

For more information on the The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) see our related posts:

EEOC Enforcement Report Reveals Significant Drop in Charges
-EEOC by the Numbers: Latest Statistics Reveal Enforcement Trends
-EEOC Files First Transgender Discrimination Suit

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
A Whistleblower Just Filed a Complaint Against Your Company: Here's What to Do Now post image

A Whistleblower Just Filed a Complaint Against Your Company: Here's What to Do Now

Few situations create more uncertainty than learning that an employee has filed a whistleblower complaint. Questions arise immediately: Is the allegation legitimate? Should the employee be placed on leave? Do we need to notify our insurance carrier? Are we now prevented from disciplining the employee if there are unrelated ongoing work related issues? There is […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "A Whistleblower Just Filed a Complaint Against Your Company: Here's What to Do Now"
Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: An Alternative to Bankruptcy for Distressed Businesses post image

Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: An Alternative to Bankruptcy for Distressed Businesses

When a business reaches the point where it can no longer service its debts or otherwise resolve its liabilities, management is often faced with a difficult question: is a bankruptcy filing necessary or is there another way to perform an orderly liquidation or sale of the business assets? While Chapters 7 and 11 of the […]

Author: John D. Giampolo

Link to post with title - "Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: An Alternative to Bankruptcy for Distressed Businesses"
Breaking Down New Jersey’s “Mansion” Tax: What Buyers and Sellers Need to Know post image

Breaking Down New Jersey’s “Mansion” Tax: What Buyers and Sellers Need to Know

For many years, the New Jersey Mansion Tax has been a significant consideration in high-value real estate transactions. Recent legislative changes, however, have substantially altered how the tax operates, including who is responsible for paying it and the amount owed in certain transactions. Whether you are purchasing, selling, or investing in New Jersey real estate, […]

Author: George McGowan

Link to post with title - "Breaking Down New Jersey’s “Mansion” Tax: What Buyers and Sellers Need to Know"
Estate Planning for Digital Assets Under New Jersey Law post image

Estate Planning for Digital Assets Under New Jersey Law

As our personal and financial lives increasingly move online, estate planning must evolve to address a new category of property: digital assets. From email accounts and social media profiles to cryptocurrency and cloud-stored business records, these assets often carry both financial and sentimental value. Yet, without proper planning, they can become inaccessible—or even lost—upon incapacity […]

Author: Marc J. Comer

Link to post with title - "Estate Planning for Digital Assets Under New Jersey Law"
The Role of Representation and Warranty Insurance in M&A Transactions post image

The Role of Representation and Warranty Insurance in M&A Transactions

In today’s mergers and acquisitions market, representation and warranty (R&W) insurance has become a common feature of deal negotiations. Once used primarily in larger transactions, R&W insurance is now frequently incorporated into middle-market deals as buyers and sellers look for efficient ways to allocate risk and close deals. When structured properly, R&W insurance can help […]

Author: George McGowan

Link to post with title - "The Role of Representation and Warranty Insurance in M&A Transactions"
You Just Received a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena in New Jersey: Now What? post image

You Just Received a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena in New Jersey: Now What?

Receiving a federal grand jury subpoena is not something most businesses or individuals anticipate. While it can be concerning, a federal grand jury subpoena does not necessarily mean that you are being accused of wrongdoing. It does, however, mean that a federal criminal investigation is underway and that federal prosecutors believe you may possess information […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "You Just Received a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena in New Jersey: Now What?"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.
“If you would like to submit a file, please email it directly to info@sh-law.com.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!