EEOC conciliation procedures
EEOC Conciliation Procedures
Overview of EEOC Conciliation
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, ADA, ADEA).
After receiving a discrimination charge, the EEOC investigates and, if reasonable cause is found, is required by law to attempt conciliation with the employer before filing a lawsuit.
Conciliation is a mandatory, informal process aimed at resolving disputes without litigation.
The EEOC’s obligation to conciliate is set out in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).
The agency’s conciliation process involves notifying the employer of the charge, sharing the investigative findings, and offering an opportunity to resolve the claim.
Failure to properly conciliate can affect the EEOC’s ability to bring enforcement lawsuits.
Legal Importance of Conciliation
Conciliation is meant to be meaningful and genuine.
Courts have held that the EEOC cannot rubber-stamp conciliation; it must engage in good faith.
If the EEOC fails to conciliate properly, courts may dismiss the EEOC’s enforcement action.
Employers can challenge an EEOC suit on grounds that conciliation was inadequate.
Key Case Law on EEOC Conciliation Procedures
1. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (1984)
Facts: EEOC sued Shell Oil for employment discrimination but Shell argued EEOC failed to properly conciliate before filing suit.
Issue: Does the EEOC have a duty to conciliate, and can failure to do so bar suit?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the EEOC must make a good faith effort to conciliate before filing suit.
Explanation: The Court recognized the statutory conciliation requirement but did not define the exact scope of “good faith.”
Significance: Established that conciliation is a condition precedent to suit, emphasizing the importance of a genuine attempt to resolve disputes.
2. EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 214 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000)
Facts: EEOC filed suit without adequately engaging in conciliation.
Issue: What constitutes a “meaningful” conciliation effort?
Holding: The Second Circuit held that conciliation must be “meaningful” — mere formalities are insufficient.
Explanation: The court reviewed correspondence and negotiations to determine whether the EEOC genuinely tried to resolve the claim.
Significance: Clarified that courts review the substance of conciliation efforts, not just the existence of a process.
3. EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988)
Facts: Employer argued EEOC failed to provide enough information or negotiate in good faith during conciliation.
Issue: Does conciliation require the EEOC to disclose sufficient facts to the employer?
Holding: The court ruled that the EEOC must disclose enough information about the claim to give the employer a fair chance to evaluate and respond.
Explanation: Conciliation is not meaningful without the employer understanding the basis of the claim.
Significance: Emphasized transparency and good faith negotiation during conciliation.
4. EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002)
Facts: The EEOC brought suit on behalf of an employee without going through the employee’s arbitration agreement.
Issue: Can an EEOC lawsuit proceed if the employee is bound to arbitrate claims?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that EEOC is bound by arbitration agreements like any private party.
Explanation: While not directly about conciliation, this case highlights the procedural constraints on EEOC enforcement.
Significance: Shows limits on EEOC’s ability to litigate without following established dispute resolution processes.
5. EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crab, Inc., 220 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000)
Facts: Employer challenged the EEOC’s conciliation effort as inadequate.
Issue: Whether the EEOC’s failure to conciliate in a meaningful way can bar enforcement.
Holding: The Eleventh Circuit held that failure to conciliate may bar the EEOC from bringing suit.
Explanation: The court examined the EEOC’s conciliation letters and found the effort lacking.
Significance: Reinforces the statutory requirement for good faith conciliation as a prerequisite to litigation.
6. EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002)
Facts: Dispute over arbitration agreement in the context of EEOC enforcement.
Issue: Does the EEOC have to honor arbitration agreements entered into by employees?
Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled the EEOC must honor arbitration agreements.
Explanation: While not strictly about conciliation, it impacts EEOC enforcement options.
Significance: Limits the EEOC’s ability to litigate when arbitration clauses exist.
Summary Table on EEOC Conciliation and Case Law
| Aspect | Key Legal Principle | Leading Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory Conciliation | EEOC must attempt conciliation before suit | Shell Oil Co. |
| Good Faith Effort | Conciliation must be genuine and meaningful | Dolgencorp; Joe’s Stone Crab |
| Disclosure | EEOC must provide sufficient info for employer to respond | Sears, Roebuck |
| Limits of Enforcement | EEOC bound by arbitration agreements | Waffle House |
Conclusion
The EEOC’s conciliation process is a critical step designed to promote voluntary resolution of discrimination claims and avoid litigation. Courts enforce this statutory requirement strictly, ensuring the EEOC engages in genuine, informed, and meaningful conciliation efforts. Failure to do so can lead to dismissal of EEOC enforcement actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments