On April 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that lower courts have authority to review whether the EEOC fulfilled its duty to attempt conciliation (typically through mediation with the parties) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that review, courts should narrowly consider whether the EEOC gave the employer notice and an opportunity to achieve voluntary compliance with Title VII’s employment discrimination prohibition. (Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2015) 135 S.Ct. 1645.)
Before the Court’s decision in Mach Mining, federal appellate courts disagreed on whether and how to review the EEOC’s efforts to resolve discrimination allegations informally before initiating a lawsuit against an employer.
Background
Title VII requires the EEOC to attempt to informally resolve a discrimination charge before the EEOC files a lawsuit against the employer on behalf of the aggrieved worker. Congress chose cooperation and voluntary compliance as the preferred means of pursuing the goal of eliminating employment discrimination. (See Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC (1982) 458 U.S. 219, 228.) Accordingly, Title VII requires the EEOC to “endeavor to eliminate [an] alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” (42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(b).) These efforts are a necessary precondition to filing a lawsuit; only if the EEOC is “unable to secure” an acceptable conciliation (settlement) agreement may EEOC file a lawsuit against the employer. (See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1).)
To further the goal of informal efforts at conciliation, the parties must agree to confidentiality and to an absolute prohibition on using anything “said or done” during conciliation as evidence in a subsequent lawsuit, without written consent of the parties. (See 42 U.S.C § 2000e–5(b).)
The Mach Mining Decision
A woman filed a charge with the EEOC claiming the employer, Mach Mining, LLC, refused to hire her as a coal miner because of her sex. The EEOC’s investigation found reasonable cause to conclude Mach Mining discriminated against the woman, along with a class of similarly situated women. The EEOC sent two letters to Mach Mining before initiating its lawsuit. The first letter invited the parties to participate in “informal methods” of dispute resolution and indicated an EEOC representative would contact the parties to begin the process. The second letter, a year later, asserted that “such conciliation efforts as are required by law have occurred and have been unsuccessful” and any further efforts would be “futile.” The EEOC then sued Mach Mining in federal district court. As an affirmative defense, Mach Mining alleged the EEOC failed to meet its statutory duty to make efforts to informally resolve the unlawful employment practice.
The EEOC contended it had fulfilled its statutory obligations, and its conciliation efforts were not reviewable by the courts beyond the two letters it sent to Mach Mining prior to filing the lawsuit. The Court disagreed, holding the EEOC’s two “bookend” letters leave no way for courts to determine that the EEOC actually, and not just purportedly, tried to conciliate a discrimination charge.
Mach Mining asked the Court to consider the parties’ conciliation process more extensively and contended the EEOC failed to make a “good faith effort” to conciliate. The Court also rejected this argument, holding a deeper inquiry into the conciliation process would violate Title VII’s confidentiality provisions. Instead, courts should consider whether the EEOC afforded the employer a chance to discuss and rectify a specified discriminatory practice, but the review should go no further. Under this ruling, courts may consider whether the EEOC attempted to confer about a charge, but not what happened during those discussions.
Conclusion
To meet the statutory condition, the EEOC must notify the employer of the claim and provide the employer with an opportunity to discuss the matter in an effort to achieve voluntary compliance. A sworn affidavit from the EEOC that it has attempted informal resolution, but those efforts have failed, will usually suffice. If, however, the employer provides credible evidence that the EEOC did not meet the requirements, a court must decide the dispute. If a court finds the EEOC failed in its obligation, the appropriate remedy is to order the EEOC to engage in the mandated process. (See 42 U.S.C § 2000e–5(f )(1) [authorizing a stay of a Title VII action for this purpose].)
Employers should expect the EEOC to be more aggressive in its pursuit of the conciliation process in order to build evidence that it made a good faith effort to do so. An EEOC charge sent to an employer typically includes information about EEOC’s conciliation process. Employers, however, are not required to engage in conciliation. The decision whether to participate should be made based on the facts of the case and in consultation with legal counsel. If the employer does not respond or conciliation efforts are not successful, the employer can expect the EEOC to follow through with legal action in court.
- Partner
Jonathan Judge heads the Private Labor and Employment Group’s Advice and Counsel Team of attorneys. He represents clients, large and small, in employment advice and counsel matters including wage and hour, leaves of absence, and ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- New San Diego County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- New Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- Legislation Impacting California Employee Handbook Policies for 2025
- Update on the California Health Care Minimum Wage
- Resources for California Employers to Track and Confirm Their State and Local Minimum Wage Requirements
- 11 Local Minimum Wage Ordinances Poised to Increase on July 1, 2024
- Fast Food Restaurants -- Be Prepared for a DIR Audit
- U.S. Supreme Court Lowers Bar for Proving Discrimination Claims
- Governor Signs Urgency Legislation Exempting Certain Restaurants from New Fast Food Minimum Wage
- Sexual Violence and Harassment Prevention Training for Janitorial Service Providers Goes Into Effect
Popular Categories
- (156)
- (25)
- (53)
- (39)
- (42)
- (36)
- (6)
- (23)
- (15)
- (15)
- (6)
- (7)
- (6)
- (6)
- (9)
- (6)
- (4)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Eddy R. Beltran
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Paul S. Fleck
- Lauren S. Gafa
- L. Brent Garrett
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Jennifer S. Grock
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Jorge J. Luna
- Brian D. Martin
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Nora Pasin
- Joseph E. Pelochino
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Saba Salamatian
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
Archives
2024
2023
2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011