SCOTUS Clarifies Limited Judicial Review of EEOC Conciliation Efforts | Practical Law

SCOTUS Clarifies Limited Judicial Review of EEOC Conciliation Efforts | Practical Law

In Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., the US Supreme Court held that courts do have judicial review over whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has fulfilled its duty under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to conciliate, however the scope of judicial review is narrow, enforcing only the EEOC's statutory obligation to give the employer notice and an opportunity to achieve voluntary compliance.

SCOTUS Clarifies Limited Judicial Review of EEOC Conciliation Efforts

Practical Law Legal Update 5-610-9505 (Approx. 5 pages)

SCOTUS Clarifies Limited Judicial Review of EEOC Conciliation Efforts

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 05 May 2015 • USA (National/Federal)
In Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., the US Supreme Court held that courts do have judicial review over whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has fulfilled its duty under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to conciliate, however the scope of judicial review is narrow, enforcing only the EEOC's statutory obligation to give the employer notice and an opportunity to achieve voluntary compliance.
On April 29, 2015, in Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., the US Supreme Court held that courts do have judicial review over whether the EEOC has fulfilled its duty under Title VII to conciliate, however the scope of judicial review is narrow, enforcing only the EEOC’s statutory obligation to give the employer notice and an opportunity to achieve voluntary compliance (No. 13-1019, (U.S. Apr. 29, 2015)).

Background

A woman filed a charge with the EEOC claiming that Mach Mining, LLC refused to hire her as a miner based on her sex. The EEOC 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. The EEOC sent a letter announcing its finding and inviting Mach Mining and the complainant to participate in informal dispute resolution, promising that an EEOC representative would contact them to begin conciliation. About a year later, the EEOC sent Mach Mining a second letter, stating that:
  • Conciliation efforts required by law have occurred and have been unsuccessful.
  • Any further efforts would be futile.
The EEOC sued Mach Mining in federal district court alleging sex discrimination in hiring, maintaining that the condition precedent of attempting to end the challenged practice through conciliation had been fulfilled. In its answer, Mach Mining asserted that the EEOC had failed to conciliate in good faith before filing suit.
The EEOC moved for summary judgment on that issue, contending that:
  • Conciliation is not subject to judicial review.
  • The two letters the EEOC sent to Mach Mining confirm that the EEOC had met its statutory duty to attempt conciliation.
The District Court:
  • Agreed with Mach Mining that it should review whether the EEOC had made a sincere and reasonable effort to negotiate.
  • At the EEOC's request, authorized an immediate appeal of its ruling.
The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that the statutory requirement to attempt conciliation is not subject to judicial review. For more information on the Seventh Circuit decision, see Legal Update, Failure-to-conciliate Affirmative Defense Not Available in EEOC Title VII Cases: Seventh Circuit.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether and to what extent the EEOC's obligation to conciliate is subject to judicial review (Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., 134 S. Ct. 2872 (2014)).

Outcome

The Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit, holding that:
  • Courts may review whether the EEOC has satisfied its statutory obligation to attempt conciliation with an employer as a prerequisite to a Title VII action. The strong presumption that Congress means to allow judicial review of administrative action is rebuttable when the statute’s language or structure demonstrates that Congress intended an agency to police itself (see Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667, 670; Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349, 351). That rebuttal is not present in this case.
  • The 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.
  • The proper scope of review matches the terms of Title VII’s conciliation provision. To comply, the EEOC must:
    • inform the employer about the specific discrimination allegation;
    • describe what the employer has done and which employees (or class of employees) have suffered; and
    • try to engage the employer in a discussion to give the employer a chance to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice.
  • A sworn affidavit from the EEOC stating that it has performed these obligations is sufficient to show that it has met the conciliation requirement.
  • The EEOC alone decides whether to resolve a charge in conciliation or resort to litigation and has discretion over:
    • the pace and duration of conciliation efforts;
    • the plasticity or firmness of EEOC's negotiating positions; and
    • the contents of its demands for relief.
  • If the employer presents evidence that the EEOC did not provide the requisite information about the charge or attempt to engage in a discussion about conciliating the claim, the court must conduct the fact-finding necessary to resolve that dispute. If it finds for the employer, the appropriate remedy is to order the EEOC to undertake the mandated conciliation.
  • In this case, the two letters sent by the EEOC to the employer were insufficient to show that the EEOC had satisfied its obligation.

Practical Implications

Although this decision overturns the Seventh Circuit’s decision and technically rejects the EEOC’s position, the standard for reviewing the EEOC’s conciliation efforts is very limited in scope. Employers should remember that conciliation with the EEOC is a negotiation and should propose counteroffers to the EEOC's demands. However, the decision to resolve a charge through conciliation or to file suit is solely within the EEOC's discretion.