Supreme Court and Court

Labor Relations/Collective Bargaining

The discussion below is a review of the case between Mach Mining and EEOC

A close look at the sex discrimination case against March Mining LLC, EEOC, and the respondent decided that there was enough ground to believe that the company engaged in hiring malpractices. Mach Mining LLC and the complainant were requested to attend conciliatory proceedings. They were also notified that an appointed representative would contact them to start the meetings. After one year, Mach Mining was sent a letter notifying them that the conciliation process had hit a deadlock and, thus, failed. The commission formally sued Mach Mining in the federal court. Mach Mining on its part claimed that the commission had not made the conciliatory efforts in good faith. The commission sought to demonstrate that it had fulfilled its judicial responsibility, and pointed out the act of sending Mach Mining the letters (MACH MINING, LLC v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION).

The District court stated that it would examine the adequacy of the commission's efforts. However, it gave the commission the leeway to appeal immediately. The Seventh Circuit advised that it was not possible to review the commission's conciliatory obligation. The constitution directs the EOCC to try to pursue conciliatory process in the event of noting of unlawful employment practice. The case in question demands that to define when and how those efforts can be reviewed by the courts. In our view, the court should determine whether EOCC fulfilled its statutory obligation of trying to reconcile the parties before it files a suit. It is, however, evident that that EOCC has too much discretion that allows it to decide the amount of communication it can establish with the employer in any case.

Legal Principles

The court did not give a precise test to determine whether EOCC's efforts were satisfactory. However, it provided helpful guidance with regard to the efforts made by EOCC and the extent of the judicial review relating to such efforts (Supreme Court's Decision in Mach Mining Impacts Employers' Approach to Conciliation with the EEOC - The National Law Review):

• EOCC must inform the employer the nature of malpractice committed, the person whose tights have been infringed and • The EOCC must also facilitate a chance for the employer to voluntarily comply. The courts were given a free hand to decide how they would review the informal approaches applied by EOCC. The court saw it fit that the federal authorities could not defeat the presumption with regard to EOCC's obligatory duty to conciliate.

(Supreme Court's Decision in Mach Mining Impacts Employers' Approach to Conciliation with the EEOC - the National Law Review).