The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's duty to "conciliate" after finding reasonable cause is reviewable in court.
The EEOC typically investigates "charges," administrative complaints filed by individuals alleging discrimination or harassment or retaliation. If EEOC decides there is no "reasonable cause" to find a violation of Title VII, the ADA, etc., it issues a "no cause" finding and a "right to sue" letter.
But when the agency decides there IS reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, then it proceeds with an effort to remedy the situation. That can be via "conciliation" - e.g., a settlement proposal, mediation, etc. If that fails the EEOC can sue or issue a eight-to-sue letter.
The conciliation process is required by law. But what happens if the employer believes the EEOC has not attempted to do so? That's what the supreme Court considered in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC. Justice Kagan, writing for the unanimous court, explained:
This case began when a woman filed a charge with the EEOC claiming that petitioner Mach Mining, LLC, had refused to hire her as a coal miner because of her sex. The Commission investigated the allegation and found reasonable cause to believe that Mach Mining had discriminated against the complainant, along with a class of women who had similarly applied for mining jobs. See App. 15. In a letter announcing that determination, the EEOC invited both the company and the complainant to participate in “informal methods” of dispute resolution, promising that a Commission representative would soon “contact [them] to begin the conciliation process.” Id., at 16. The record does not disclose what happened next. But about a year later, the Commission sent Mach Mining a second letter, stating that “such conciliation efforts as are required by law have occurred and have been unsuccessful” and that any further efforts would be “futile.” Id., at 18–19.
The EEOC then sued Mach Mining in federal district court alleging sex discrimination in hiring. The Commission’s complaint maintained that “[a]ll conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit”—including an attempt to end the challenged practice through conciliation—“ha[d] been fulfilled.” Id., at 22. In its answer, Mach Mining contested that statement, asserting that the EEOC had failed to “conciliat[e] in good faith” prior to filing suit. Id., at 30.
So, the EEOC moved for summary judgment against Mach Mining on the conciliation issue, arguing that the quality of its efforts are not reviewable by a court. The district court disagreed; the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the EEOC.
The Supreme Court held as follows:
1. Courts indeed have the power to review the EEOC's efforts to conciliate. Therefore, the court rejected the EEOC's argument that it had unreviewable discretion to determine what is adequate.
2. EEOC's letter showing that it found reasonable cause and planned to conciliate, and a later letter stating conciliation has failed is insufficient evidence of conciliation. EEOC must provide notice to the employer of what the violation is claimed to be, and must provide a court with an affidavit that it attempted conciliation. If the employer offers credible evidence contradicting EEOC's claim, the court may do fact-finding into that limited issue.
3. If the district court finds in favor of the employer - that the EEOC did not conciliate adequately - then it is to stay the action and order the EEOC to conciliate.
So, thanks for reading this far. As you probably figured out, this case will have little impact on employers and employment litigation. First, the EEOC finds reasonable cause in few cases. Second, the failure to conciliate at best is remedied with an order to conciliate, not dismissal of the lawsuit. And third, EEOC rarely sues employers, filing lawsuits in just a small percentage of cases in which it finds cause. Fourth, this case has no bearing on state agencies and their charges, such as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing in California.
So, that's Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC. The opinion is here.
