129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 300
D. Md.2016Background
- EEOC charged Dimensions Healthcare with sex discrimination for failing to promote Cassandra Crawford after her maternity leave; EEOC found reasonable cause on May 11, 2015.
- EEOC sent a conciliation letter and (per its declaration) engaged Dimensions in communications and sent a conciliation proposal between May 11 and July 7, 2015.
- On July 7, 2015, EEOC concluded conciliation efforts were unsuccessful and notified Dimensions; EEOC filed suit on August 10, 2015.
- Dimensions initially pleaded a failure-to-conciliate defense, then withdrew it in an amended answer but continued to contest conciliation in opposition to summary judgment.
- EEOC moved for partial summary judgment that it satisfied Title VII’s pre-suit conciliation requirement and moved to strike employer submissions describing conciliation communications as confidential and barred by Title VII.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EEOC satisfied Title VII’s pre-suit conciliation prerequisite | EEOC: sent notice of reasonable cause, engaged in communications, sent a conciliation proposal, then reasonably ceased efforts — sworn EEOC declaration suffices | Dimensions: EEOC did not meaningfully conciliate or negotiate in good faith; factual dispute exists | Court: Grant. EEOC’s affidavit plus notice satisfy Mach Mining’s narrow review showing notice and attempt to engage employer |
| Whether court may consider employer’s evidentiary descriptions of conciliation communications | EEOC: such descriptions are barred by Title VII’s confidentiality provision and Mach Mining limits review | Dimensions: proffered affidavit and briefing detailing conciliation substance to show insufficiency | Court: Grant EEOC’s motion to strike; struck portions revealing what was said or done; such material is confidential and not admissible |
| Whether courts may review EEOC’s good-faith or substantive bargaining conduct during conciliation | EEOC: Mach Mining precludes inquiry into adequacy, good faith, or negotiation tactics beyond narrow notice-and-attempt test | Dimensions: seeks broader inquiry into EEOC’s negotiation conduct and demands | Court: Deny expanded review; Mach Mining forbids imposing extra procedural or good-faith requirements on EEOC |
| Whether employer waived its failure-to-conciliate defense by amending answer | EEOC: defense was withdrawn in amended answer; waiver may apply but EEOC did not press waiver | Dimensions: continued to press the issue in briefing | Court: Considered the merits despite withdrawal because EEOC did not assert waiver; resolved on merits in EEOC’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) (Supreme Court: judicial review of EEOC conciliation is narrow — limited to notice and attempt to engage; EEOC’s affidavit usually suffices; confidentiality must be protected)
- Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982) (Title VII favors cooperation and voluntary compliance via conciliation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; moving party’s burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment: evidence of nonmovant to be believed; inferences drawn in their favor)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts’ inherent authority to manage proceedings and strike materials)