161 F. Supp. 3d 632
S.D. Ill.2016Background
- EEOC sued Mach Mining alleging a long‑running pattern of sex discrimination for failing to hire women for mining positions; Mach Mining pleaded the affirmative defense that EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith.
- The district court initially denied EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment on the conciliation defense; the question was certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and litigated on appeal.
- The Seventh Circuit granted summary judgment to EEOC; the Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that courts may review whether EEOC attempted conciliation but review is narrow, and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand EEOC renewed its motion for partial summary judgment that it satisfied 42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑5(b); Mach Mining opposed and the EEOC moved to strike portions of Mach Mining’s filings as disclosing conciliation communications.
- The district court struck Mach Mining’s “Section F” and certain exhibit/statement paragraphs as violating § 2000e‑5(b), barred disclosure of conciliation communications without consent, and granted EEOC’s renewed partial summary judgment finding EEOC complied with the statutory conciliation obligation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts may review EEOC’s pre‑suit conciliation efforts and scope of review | EEOC argued courts may review only whether it attempted to conciliate and that review should be narrow and deferential | Mach Mining argued courts may examine the substance of conciliation, including positions and communications | Court (following Supreme Court) held courts may review whether EEOC attempted conciliation but review is narrow and does not probe substantive communications |
| Whether Mach Mining’s filings disclosed prohibited conciliation communications under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑5(b) | EEOC moved to strike portions that revealed positions/actions during conciliation, arguing they violated the nondisclosure statute | Mach Mining contended it described what was missing from conciliation and did not reveal actual statements | Court struck Section F and specified exhibit/statement paragraphs as impermissible disclosures and barred future disclosure without consent |
| Whether EEOC satisfied the two‑part conciliation test from Mach Mining (notice + attempt to confer) | EEOC submitted a sworn declaration (Bowman) asserting it engaged in oral/written communications sufficient to provide opportunity to remedy | Mach Mining submitted an affidavit (Witcher) alleging EEOC failed to provide requested information; argued it lacked opportunity to remedy | Court found EEOC met both prongs as a matter of law: proper notice and evidence EEOC attempted to confer; Mach Mining’s affidavit did not credibly refute attempt to confer |
| Whether district court should consider the content of conciliation communications in determining adequacy of conciliation | EEOC asserted content is protected and review must not consider statements/positions | Mach Mining argued positions and responses are relevant to whether conciliation occurred in substance | Court followed Supreme Court: review limited to whether EEOC attempted to confer, not the substance of discussions; therefore content was excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Mach Mining, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) (Supreme Court holding courts may review whether EEOC attempted conciliation but scope of review is narrow)
- E.E.O.C. v. Mach Mining, LLC, 738 F.3d 171 (7th Cir. 2013) (Seventh Circuit decision on conciliation affirmative defense that was vacated and remanded following Supreme Court review)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard governing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for evaluating evidence and inferences on summary judgment)
- Spath v. Hayes Wheels Int’l‑Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment principles)