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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more