Skip to main content

One to Keep an Eye On: Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, United States Supreme Court


As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  In 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received a charge of discrimination filed by a woman who claimed that Mach Mining had denied her applications for a coal mining job because of her gender.  After investigating the cause, the EEOC determined there was reasonable cause to believe a discrimination claim existed.  In 2010, both parties subsequently discussed a possible resolution but no agreement was reached.  In 2011, the EEOC informed Mach that it had determined the conciliation process had been unsuccessful and further attempts would be futile.  The EEOC filed suit against Mach and Mach raised several defenses, namely that the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith.   

Note that Section 706(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires the EEOC first determine whether reasonable cause exists to support a charge of discrimination.  At that point, "the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.  At that point, the EEOC is then able to bring suit 30 days after filing a Charge against the employer in the event it [the EEOC] "has been unable to secure from the respondent [the employer] a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission."  

I added that emphasis for good measure...as the argument follows that allowing extensive judicial review could threaten to undermine meritorious cases by incentivizing protracted collateral litigation rather than deciding the underlying discrimination claim itself.

Looking Back:  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that while the EEOC has statutory authority to negotiate first and sue later, an employer cannot use the defense that the EEOC made no real effort to reach a resolution in conciliation to fend of an EEOC suit.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals held that since the EEOC has a unilateral obligation to engage in conciliation, the EEOC had unilateral discretion to determine whether the process worked before filing suit.

The Main Issue:  While the EEOC may bring suit against employers on behalf of aggrieved employees, but only after first satisfying certain preconditions such as conciliation, under what circumstances may a court scrutinize the EEOC's claim that conciliation has failed?

Lower Court Opinion:  http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2013/D12-20/C:13-2456:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1262102:S:0

Current Status:  The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case on January 13, 2015.

Looking Ahead:   If I had to guess, I would say the United States Supreme Court will follow the line of reasoning that holds the EEOC has broad authority to determine when the conciliation process is over.  While there is some risk to allowing the EEOC this, relatively speaking, unfettered discretion, I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would want to open up these EEOC conciliation efforts to lengthy, expensive, and time consuming judicial review.   

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

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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