The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must make “good faith” efforts to seek reconciliation before it sues a business for discrimination, under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. The decision was a strong rebuke to the commission, which had previously asserted that the courts had no jurisdiction over its reconciliation process.
“Congress imposed a mandatory duty on the EEOC to attempt conciliation and made that duty a precondition to filing a lawsuit. Such compulsory prerequisites are routinely enforced by courts in Title VII litigation. And though Congress gave the EEOC wide latitude to choose which ‘informal methods’ to use, it did not deprive courts of judicially manageable criteria by which to review the conciliation process,” the court ruled in the case EEOC v. Mach Mining.
The opinion was authored by Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of President Obama.
The case has been closely watched by business groups, since the commission’s stance effectively eliminated one of the main defenses used by employers when facing a discrimination complaint. The Chamber of Commerce highlighted the case in a lengthy study published last year that argued the commission under Obama was pursuing a “scorched earth” litigation strategy against employers.
The case involved a sex discrimination charge against the employer, an Illinois mining company, for refusing to hire a woman as a miner. The commission investigated, decided the case had merit and sent a letter to company calling on it to participate in “informal methods” of dispute resolution. A year later, the commission announced the efforts had failed and sued the company for discrimination.
Mach Mining countersued, arguing that the commission did not try to negotiate in good faith before filing the lawsuit. The commission responded that its actions before filing a lawsuit were not subject to judicial review at all, a stance affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court.
The justices struck that ruling down, saying the plain language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes clear that Congress did intend for the courts to have oversight. “Congress rarely intends to prevent courts from enforcing its directives to federal agencies,” Kagan’s opinion stated.
The ruling stated that the commission “must inform the employer about the specific discrimination allegation” with a notice describing what the employer did and the employee(s) who suffered as a result. It must then “engage the employer in a discussion in order to give the employer a chance to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice” before it can pursue litigation.
Update: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued the case was a win for it because the justices said courts may conduct only a “relatively bare-bones review” of its pre-trial efforts.
“We are pleased the court rejected the intrusive review proposed by respondent and its supporters. The court recognized that the scope of review is narrow and a sworn affidavit is generally sufficient to meet the statutory requirements. If the employer has concrete evidence that such efforts were not made and the court finds in favor of the employer, the remedy is further conciliation,” said David Lopez, general counsel for the commission.
