Advertisement

July 24, 2014

Employer Urges Supreme Court to Settle Federal Court Split over Judicial Review of EEOC’s Conciliation - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The U.S. Supreme Court may resolve a split among the federal appeals courts on whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s efforts at conciliation before bringing suit against an employer are open to judicial review. Most circuit courts to have considered the issue decided that courts may engage in a searching review of the EEOC’s conciliatory efforts. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, in EEOC v. Mach Mining, LLC, 738 F.3d 171 (7th Cir. 2013), took the opposite view. (For more on the Seventh Circuit decision, see our article, Seventh Circuit Agrees with EEOC There Is No Affirmative Defense for the EEOC’s Failure to Conciliate.) The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Conciliation is important in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission matters, occurring in cases in which the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe an employer has violated a statute it enforces. The EEOC may file a lawsuit only if the Commission has been unable to secure a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission.

In many federal courts, employers sued for discrimination by the EEOC after attempts at conciliation have failed cite flaws in the agency’s conciliation process as a defense to the lawsuit. Employer in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have the opportunity to seek dismissal of the lawsuit based on the failure of the EEOC’s conciliation process.

The defendant-employer, Mach Mining, requested the Supreme Court review the Seventh Circuit’s decision on February 25, 2014 (No. 13-1019). Mach Mining asks the Court to settle the question of whether courts may enforce the EEOC’s mandatory duty to conciliate before filing suit. It grounds its request on (1) the circuit split created by the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, (2) its contention that the question presented is important and recurring, and (3) its contention that the Seventh Circuit’s ruling is wrong. The EEOC has until April 28, 2014, to respond to the petition.

Mach Mining argues the Seventh Circuit’s position runs contrary to longstanding precedent in six other circuit courts. It notes that these circuits have long found that the EEOC’s efforts to conciliate are subject to “good faith” review or a more probing review of whether the EEOC (a) provided sufficient information to the employer, (b) gave it a meaningful opportunity to respond, and (c) exhibited a reasonable attitude in light of the employer’s response. 

Mach Mining further argues the Seventh Circuit’s position is completely untenable and its reasoning is faulty. First, it asserts that the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 infers an affirmative defense, just as it does with respect to other conditions precedent, such as the requirements that charges and lawsuits from individuals be filed within certain time limits. Second, Mach Mining contends that the Seventh Circuit’s reliance on the confidentiality requirements of conciliation is misplaced because they do not demonstrate that Congress intended the courts to take the EEOC at its word with respect to its conciliation efforts. Third, Mach Mining notes the Seventh Circuit’s concern that there is no meaningful standard of review to apply as to the adequacy of the EEOC’s efforts is rendered moot by the case law of six other circuits and the EEOC’s ability to promulgate regulations. Finally, Mach Mining asserts the Seventh Circuit does not provide any support for the court’s professed concern that employers may act in bad faith if judicial review exists; in fact, it argues, absent judicial review, the EEOC may follow its stated intention to file large, publicity-seeking lawsuits aimed at gaining class relief rather than achieving lower profile conciliated resolutions of such cases. 

If the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case for review and rejects the Seventh Circuit decision, employers subject to EEOC investigations would better able to reach settlements with the Commission before litigation. If Supreme Court affirms the Seventh Circuit decision or decline to review it, the EEOC may be emboldened to extend its arguments to the other statutes it enforces which incorporate Title VII’s conciliation requirement, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2014

About the Author

Paul Patten, Employment, Labor, Attorney, Jackson Lewis, Law Firm
Shareholder

Paul Patten is a Shareholder in the Chicago, Illinois office of Jackson Lewis P.C., where he represents management in employment cases in federal and state courts before administrative agencies.  Mr. Patten’s practice focuses primarily on employment litigation and counseling.  He represents employers in federal and state individual and class-based lawsuits covering a wide range of statutes and subjects, including federal and state anti-discrimination and wage and hour laws.

(312) 787-4949

About the Author

Jason A. Selvey, Jackson Lewis law firm, labor employment attorney
Associate

Jason A. Selvey is an Associate in the Chicago, Illinois office of Jackson Lewis P.C

312-787-4949

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.