Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. MacH Mining, LLC
738 F.3d 171
7th Cir.2013Background
- EEOC charged Mach Mining with sex discrimination in hiring after investigating a 2008 female applicant's claims.
- EEOC informed Mach Mining in 2010 of informal conciliation efforts; discussions occurred but no agreement reached.
- In 2011 EEOC announced conciliation unsuccessful and filed suit two weeks later; Mach Mining answered alleging, among other things, failure to conciliate in good faith.
- District court denied summary judgment on the implied defense but certified an interlocutory question on whether failure-to-conciliate is reviewable.
- Court holds that Title VII requires conciliation but confidentiality and lack of standards foreclose an implied defense that would dismiss the merits.
- EEOC seeks summary judgment; court reverses district court and remands for merits proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is an implied failure-to-conciliate defense under Title VII | Mach Mining asserts implicit defense to dismiss suit. | Mach Mining contends defense exists; district court granted none. | No implied failure-to-conciliate defense exists. |
| Whether a workable standard exists to review conciliation in court | Standard should evaluate EEOC's conciliation efforts. | No workable standard; concerns about confidentiality and discretion. | No workable, judicially reviewable standard; review would intrude on confidentiality. |
| Whether confidentiality provisions conflict with evidence or review of conciliation | Conciliation materials could be reviewed to assess good faith. | Confidentiality bars use of conciliation materials in later proceedings. | Confidentiality bars judicial review of conciliation and argues against imperfect defenses. |
| Whether recognizing a failure-to-conciliate defense aligns with Title VII's goals | Defense would aid enforcement and ensure EEOC actually conciliates. | Defense would undermine voluntary compliance and encourage litigation over settlement. | Recognition would undermine voluntary compliance and deter enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Caterpillar, Inc., 409 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005) (probable cause findings generally not reviewable; conciliation merits not open to challenge)
- Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2006) (no requirement of complainant cooperation as prerequisite to suit; limits on reviewing EEOC process)
- EEOC v. Elgin Teachers Association, 27 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 1994) (choice to sue rests with the agency conscience, not judiciary)
- EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2003) (three-part testing of conciliation; not adopted by this court)
- EEOC v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097 (6th Cir. 1984) (good faith standard used in some circuits)
- EEOC v. Zia Co., 582 F.2d 527 (10th Cir. 1978) (confidentiality and good-faith review concerns)