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

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