Skip to main content

Updated: Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, United States Supreme Court


Earlier this year, I highlighted a case that I thought readers would want to keep an eye on.  The case, Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, was pending before the United States Supreme Court after being appealed from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  (One to Keep An Eye On: Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC).  


Background:  This case centered around whether the EEOC's conciliation efforts could be subjected to judicial scrutiny by a court once suit was filed.  For those not familiar with this issue, Section 706(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that the EEOC first determine whether reasonable cause exists to support a charge of discrimination.  Once a positive affirmation is made, "the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion."  If the EEOC has been unable to secure from the respondent [the employer] a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, suit can then be filed. 

Holding:  In a somewhat surprising opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and endorsed a limited judicial review of the EEOC's pre-suit conciliation efforts.  In its opinion, the Court held that the EEOC must attempt to engage the employer in a discussion pre-suit "so as to give the employer an opportunity to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice."  

Note, however, that the Court limited the judicial review of the conciliation process to a rather narrow one of whether or not the EEOC met the conciliation requirements as set forth in Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(b).  

Judgment:  The United States Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that the EEOC's conciliation efforts can be subjected to a narrow judicial review and only go so far as to ensure the EEOC complied with the statutory requirements in Title VII.

The Takeaway:  This ruling was a bit surprising to me, in that I worry this could open up the flood gates and expose the EEOC conciliation process to endless judicial review and litigation.  It is important to note that the Supreme Court held that while the EEOC conciliation process is subject to judicial review, a court can only conduct a very narrow review.  

While I do not agree with the Court's decision here, it provides employers some assurances that the EEOC's conciliation process can now be more carefully scrutinized.  In doing so, however, the Court carved out a very narrow framework in which the conciliation process can be reviewed by a court.  So even though this is a win for employers, it is not as broad of a ruling as the Court could have handed down. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Kagan

Date:  April 29, 2015


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more