169 F. Supp. 3d 877
S.D. Ill.2016Background
- Montrell Ingram applied to be a chipper at Amsted Rail in 2011, was offered the job contingent on a medical exam, and was not hired after the company physician deemed him not medically qualified; Ingram had a history of carpal tunnel syndrome.
- Ingram filed an EEOC charge alleging discrimination based on disability, perceived disability, or record of disability; the charge did not specify the exact disability.
- The EEOC investigated, sent a June 10, 2011 investigatory letter referencing carpal tunnel/nerve conduction testing, and on February 28, 2013 issued a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause and inviting conciliation.
- The EEOC and Amsted communicated about conciliation between February 28, 2013 and February 12, 2014; the EEOC later concluded conciliation was unsuccessful and filed suit in November 2014.
- Amsted asserted as a defense that the EEOC failed to meaningfully conciliate before suing; the EEOC moved for partial summary judgment that it satisfied the statutory conciliation requirement and moved to strike parts of Amsted’s filings that disclose conciliation communications.
- The court treated communications about conciliation as confidential under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), struck substantive descriptions of those communications from Amsted’s summary judgment response, and evaluated adequacy of conciliation under Mach Mining.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EEOC satisfied statutory conciliation requirement before suing | EEOC: it issued a reasonable-cause Letter of Determination, communicated with Amsted, sent a conciliation proposal, and the EEOC’s affidavit shows its efforts failed | Amsted: EEOC’s notice lacked specifics and its outreach was not a meaningful, good-faith attempt to engage (a sham or take-it-or-leave-it) | Court: EEOC satisfied Mach Mining’s two-part test (gave employer notice of claim and engaged in discussion); summary judgment for EEOC granted |
| Whether Amsted may disclose/use communications during conciliation in court filings | EEOC: communications are confidential under §2000e-5(b); portions of Amsted’s filing that reveal what was said/done must be struck | Amsted: described its attempts to engage and EEOC’s lack of responsiveness; argued court should consider content | Court: granted EEOC’s motion to strike; ordered Amsted’s response and attachments sealed and required redacted filing removing references to what was said or done during conciliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) (courts may perform narrow review to ensure EEOC informed employer of claim and afforded opportunity to confer; EEOC’s conciliation efforts need not follow a specific checklist)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: movant must show no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment: evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant and court assesses whether a reasonable jury could find for nonmoving party)