EEOC Will Provide Position Statements to Employees While Charge Is Pending...But

the door does not swing both ways.

When an employee files an administrative charge or complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency usually requires the employer to provide a position statement. A position statement is a response to the complaint charge, which is often a letter explaining the legitimate reason for action taken, along with a response to requests for information.  The EEOC uses the charge and position statement to investigate whether there is "reasonable cause" to find a violation of the federal anti-discrimination laws.

The position statements are usually subject to disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act during later litigation.  However, under a revised policy, employees who file the charge (and their lawyers) can simply ask for the position statements while the charge is pending. That gives the employees and their counsel what is known as "free discovery" It also gives them a chance to respond to the position statement.

The "but" in the title of this post is that the EEOC will not provide the employer with the Employee's response to the position statement upon request.  So, employers and their lawyers do not get a "free look" at the employee's proof of discrimination or harassment.

Writing a good position statement is key for several reasons.  Of course it will influence the EEOC's decision on the merits of the charge. But it also will influence the employee's lawyer's decision regarding whether to take a case. And it will affect the employer's litigation position later if there is a lawsuit.  Accuracy is important, because when an employer's reasons change over time, that can be used as proof of a discriminatory motive.

The EEOC's policy is explained on the agency's website here. The EEOC also provides tips to employers and employees linked on its site.

U.S. Supreme Court: Courts Have the Power to Review EEOC's Conciliation Efforts

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. 

California Court of Appeal SLAPPs Claim for Breach of Settlement Agreement

Perhaps you have read about the EEOC's recent lawsuits attacking severance agreements as allegedly containing illegal provisions, because they impede the EEOC's work. The EEOC is challenging everything from "cooperation clauses," to general releases that broadly preclude the releasing employee from bringing future claims.  You know, in exchange for money.   Here's an example of what the EEOC is doing.  If the EEOC wins,  and they don't win all of these efforts to radically change the law via agency internal policy and litigation rather than legislation (Hi, credit check lawsuits), many standard releases will have to be modified.

Yes, the above discussion is related to why I asked you here today.  Somewhat. The California Court of Appeal just found that an employer's lawsuit against a union for breach of settlement agreement should be stricken because the lawsuit was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.   The court's ruling in part is based on a conclusion that the parties' non-cooperation agreement was not enforceable.

The United Farmworkers Union settled one of two pending unfair labor practice charges with a company called D'Arrigo Bros. of California.

On February 18, 2011, UFW's attorney sent D'Arrigo's counsel a letter purporting to "memorialize the UFW's agreement." In the letter UFW acknowledged that it had obtained dismissal of the second ULP, and it promised not to refile this charge "and/or the substantive allegations at a later date." . . . UFW therefore agrees that said Objection Five will in fact be dismissed in its entirety or that, in the event the Executive Secretary for any reason declines to dismiss all or any of it prior to a hearing, UFW will timely act to withdraw its declarations and argument regarding Objection Five and will not present any evidence thereon in the objection process; and will continue to advise (in writing, on the record) the Executive Secretary, General Counsel, and/or assigned administrative law judge that UFW wants Objection Five entirely dismissed; and that UFW will not pursue, nor assist [in] pursuing, Objection Five in any fashion whatsoever."

Then, during proceedings on the remaining unfair labor practice charge, D'Arrigo believed the UFW breached the above agreement and cooperated with the Agrigultural Labor Relations Board's general counsel.

D'Arrigo sued the UFW for breaching the settlement agreement.  The UFW filed a motion to strike the D'Arrigo lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP law.  The UFW's basis for the motion was that D'Arrigo's claim was really a lawsuit designed to retaliate against UFW for cooperating with the ALRB's proceedings in the matter that was not settled.

The Court of Appeal held that UFW should win the anti-SLAPP motion, resulting in dismissal of D'Arrigo's lawsuit.    Of note, the Court held that D'Arrigo's basis for asserting breach of contract - that the UFW violated an agreement not to cooperate with the ALRB - was unenforceable:

we agree with UFW—and with the General Counsel as amicus curiae-- that any interpretation of the stipulated language to prohibit UFW from cooperating with [the general counsel] in his investigation and prosecution of the first ULP charge must be rejected as contrary to the public policy inherent in the ALRA.

*  *  * 

Moreover, the [employer's] ability to guarantee the silence of witnesses by means of a legally enforceable private agreement does not comport with either the spirit or the stated purpose of the ALRA." 

That purpose is clearly stated in Labor Code section 1140.2: "[T]o encourage and protect the right of agricultural employees to full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers . . . ." This public interest is not advanced if private agreements between employer and employee are allowed to obstruct the General Counsel's prosecution of complaints. (Cf. E.E.O.C. v. Astra U.S.A., Inc. (1st Cir. 1996) 94 F.3d 738, 744-745 [settlement provision prohibiting employee from assisting EEOC in its investigation of sexual harassment charges against employer is void as against public policy].)

So, another trend in employment law appears to be increased scrutiny of releases.  Employers should ensure they know what they are bargaining for when they settle claims.  Absolute confidentiality is not realistic. Neither is a promise never to participate or cooperate in a future proceeding.  Employers should not pay settlements or separation pay expecting to fully achieve these goals.   That said, there are ways to draft agreements to comply with the limitations.   At least there used to be. We'll have to see what happens in the EEOC's litigation.

This case is D'Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of Am.  and the opinion is here.

EEOC Again Goes After Criminal Background Checks

The EEOC is still filing lawsuits against employers who conduct criminal background checks as shown in this June 11 press release.  States are limiting criminal background checks too.  Based on the government's current hostility, it is important to review your background check policies and procedures frequently in all states in which you do business.