MacH Mining, LLC v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n
135 S. Ct. 1645
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- Complainant filed a sex‑discrimination charge with the EEOC alleging Mach Mining refused to hire women as coal miners; EEOC found reasonable cause after investigation.
- EEOC sent an initial letter notifying Mach Mining of the reasonable‑cause finding and that a representative would contact the parties to begin conciliation; record is unclear what follow‑up occurred.
- About a year later the EEOC sent a second letter stating conciliation efforts required by law had occurred and were unsuccessful, then sued Mach Mining in federal court under Title VII.
- Mach Mining answered, alleging the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith; the EEOC argued its conciliation efforts are not subject to judicial review and that its two letters suffice to show compliance.
- The district court held courts could review the adequacy of conciliation; the Seventh Circuit held conciliation is unreviewable but treated the EEOC’s two letters as facially sufficient; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit, holding courts may review whether the EEOC attempted conciliation but that review is narrow and limited to whether notice and an opportunity to discuss the allegation were provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts may review EEOC compliance with Title VII's pre‑suit conciliation duty | Mach Mining: courts should review whether EEOC conciliated in good faith and examine the conciliation process | EEOC/Govt: conciliation is entrusted to the EEOC and statutorily largely discretionary, so judicial review is precluded or extremely limited | Courts may review whether the EEOC attempted conciliation; the presumption of judicial review applies and is not rebutted here |
| Proper scope of judicial review of conciliation | Mach Mining: adopt a NLRA‑style good‑faith, process‑based review with specific procedural requirements | EEOC/Govt: review should be limited to facial inspection of EEOC documents (e.g., its two letters) | Scope is narrow: review is limited to whether EEOC informed the employer of the specific allegation and gave an opportunity to discuss remediation; not a probing inquiry into negotiation tactics |
| What evidence suffices to show EEOC met its conciliation duty | Mach Mining: detailed discovery and disclosure of conciliation communications to prove a lack of good faith | EEOC/Govt: the EEOC’s routine correspondence (bookend letters) should be dispositive | A sworn EEOC affidavit that it provided required notice and attempted discussion will usually suffice; if employer submits credible contrary evidence, limited factfinding follows |
| Appropriate remedy if EEOC failed to attempt conciliation | Mach Mining: not explicitly outlined beyond proving failure | EEOC/Govt: not addressed in detail | If court finds EEOC did not attempt conciliation, it should order the EEOC to undertake the mandated conciliation efforts (and may stay the suit) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) (strong presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action)
- Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340 (1984) (statutory structure can rebut presumption of judicial review)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (discretionary agency enforcement decisions and limits on reviewability)
- EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U.S. 590 (1981) (Title VII confidentiality of conciliation communications)
- Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982) (Title VII prefers cooperation and voluntary compliance)
- Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975) (agency bears heavy burden to show Congress intended to preclude judicial review)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (prerequisites and procedural requirements in Title VII litigation)