Courts Will Make Sure EEOC Tries to Resolve Discrimination Claims Before Filing a Lawsuit
Author: Michael Cardman, XpertHR Legal Editor
April 29, 2015
Who polices the police?
A ruling issued today by the Supreme Court, EEOC v Mach Mining, answers this question in the realm of federal employment laws.
The key agency working the employment law beat is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other laws that prohibit an employer from discriminating against employees and job applicants based on their race, color, religion, sex and other protected characteristics.
When the EEOC has reasonable cause to believe that an employee's complaint of discrimination has merit, federal law requires that the agency try to end the alleged discrimination through "informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion" before filing a lawsuit.
Employer representatives have claimed that the EEOC has been taking shortcuts, using this conciliation process "not to resolve suspected discrimination informally in a just and meaningful way, but rather to extort an exorbitant monetary settlement from a charge respondent under constant threat of high-profile litigation."
The Mach Mining case began when a coal mining company sought to have a sex discrimination claim against it thrown out on the grounds that the EEOC did not try in good faith to reconcile before filing suit.
The EEOC countered that its conciliation efforts are not subject to judicial review. A federal appeals court agreed, finding that a "failure to conciliate" defense could help employers avoid liability for illegal discrimination.
But the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the appeals court's ruling, finding that courts have a right to review the conciliation process, albeit a limited one.
Before filing suit, the Supreme Court said, the EEOC must:
- Tell the employer about the claim - essentially, what practice has harmed which person or class; and
- Provide the employer with an opportunity to discuss the matter in an effort to achieve voluntary compliance.
The EEOC had claimed a bare bones review of its letters was enough for courts to ensure these requirements are met.
Mach Mining, on the other hand, had sought to have the courts take a "deep dive," making sure the EEOC tells employers the smallest remedial award it would accept and lays out "the factual and legal basis for" all its positions, among other things.
The Supreme Court took a middle path. It said a sworn affidavit from the EEOC will usually be enough to show that conciliation requirements have been met. But if an employer presents concrete evidence that the EEOC failed to take those steps, a court must review the situation. If the court finds for the employer, it can order the EEOC to undertake the mandated conciliation efforts, the Supreme Court concluded.
The EEOC claimed this limited approach represented a victory for victims of discrimination. "As the court noted, Title VII is about substantive outcomes," EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said in a statement. "We are pleased the court rejected the intrusive review proposed by [Mach Mining] and its supporters."