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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more