United States: Supreme Court Confirms EEOC Conciliation Efforts Are Subject To Judicial Review

On April 29, 2015, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split in holding that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) attempts to conciliate a discrimination charge prior to filing a lawsuit are judicially reviewable. In Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC,1 the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that had held the EEOC's conciliation effort during the administrative charge process was not judicially reviewable and not an affirmative defense to be used against the agency.2 Although Title VII provides the EEOC with "wide latitude" to choose which informal conciliation methods to employ, the Supreme Court found the statute also provides "concrete standards" for what the conciliation process must entail.

Specifically, the Court held that, to comply with its statutory conciliation obligations, the EEOC must inform the employer about the specific discrimination allegation(s) and such notice must describe what the employer has done and which employees (or class of employees) have suffered. The Court further held the EEOC must try to engage the employer in a discussion in order to give the employer a chance to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice. However, while the Court held that judicial review of these requirements is appropriate, the scope of that judicial review is "narrow." A court will merely conduct a "barebones review" of the conciliation process and the EEOC will have "expansive discretion" to decide "how to conduct conciliation efforts" and "when to end them."

Significantly, a court is not to examine positions taken by the agency during the conciliation process. The Court noted that while a sworn affidavit from the EEOC stating that it has performed these obligations would generally suffice to show that it has met the conciliation requirement, where an employer presents concrete evidence that the EEOC did not provide the requisite information about the charge or attempt to engage in a discussion about conciliating the claim, a reviewing court will be tasked with conducting "the fact-finding necessary to resolve that limited dispute." Ultimately, the Court held, where a court finds for an employer on the issue of the EEOC's failure to conciliate, the appropriate remedy is to order the EEOC to undertake the mandated conciliation efforts. While some courts in the past have imposed the remedy of dismissal of a lawsuit based on failing to meet its conciliation obligation, that drastic measure appears to have been eliminated based on the Court's decision.

Procedural History

In 2011, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Mach Mining, alleging it had discriminated against women in its hiring practices. Mach Mining denied the allegations and asserted the affirmative defense that the EEOC did not conciliate in good faith prior to bringing suit. The EEOC moved for partial summary judgment on this affirmative defense and argued that, based on the Seventh Circuit's decision in EEOC v. Caterpillar, Inc.,3 the conciliation process was not subject to judicial review. The district court denied the EEOC's motion, relying on decisions from other circuits permitting an employer to challenge the EEOC's conciliation efforts, holding that "the EEOC's conciliation process is subject to at least some level of judicial review and that review would involve at least a cursory review of the parties' conciliation." Based on the importance of the issue, the district court certified an interlocutory appeal of the court's order to the Seventh Circuit.

In December 2013, the Seventh Circuit held the sufficiency of the EEOC's conciliation efforts were not judicially reviewable, becoming the first federal circuit to foreclose an employer's ability to use the implied affirmative defense that the EEOC failed to conciliate prior to bringing suit.4 The Supreme Court agreed to review this case, and consider whether and to what extent a court may enforce the EEOC's mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.

The Supreme Court's Analysis

In reversing the Seventh Circuit's decision, the Supreme Court held "a court may review whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory obligation to attempt conciliation before filing suit" but "the scope of that review is narrow, thus recognizing the EEOC's extensive discretion to determine the kind and amount of communication with an employer appropriate in any given case."5

The Supreme Court noted that it applies a "strong presumption" favoring judicial review of administrative action, and that absent judicial review, the EEOC's compliance with the law would rest in the EEOC's hands alone despite the fact that legal lapses and violations occur, especially so when they would have no consequence.

The Supreme Court also set forth the standard for the scope of judicial review of the EEOC's conciliation efforts. Because Title VII requires the EEOC to afford the employer a chance to discuss and rectify a specified discriminatory practice, the EEOC must inform the employer about the specific discrimination allegation. Such notice must describe what the employer has done and which employees (or class of employees) have suffered. Then, the EEOC must try to engage the employer in a discussion in order to give the employer a chance to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice. Previously, different circuits used different standards in reviewing the EEOC's conciliation efforts.6 The scope of judicial review set forth by the Court allows the EEOC to exercise the expansive discretion Title VII gives it to decide how to conduct conciliation efforts and when to end them. The Court held that a sworn affidavit from the EEOC stating that it has performed its conciliation obligations should suffice to show that it has met the conciliation requirement. "If, however, the employer provides credible evidence of its own, in the form of an affidavit or otherwise, indicating that the EEOC did not provide the requisite information about the charge or attempt to engage in a discussion about conciliating the claim, a court must conduct the factfinding necessary to decide that limited dispute."7

In adopting this as the proper scope of judicial review, the Supreme Court rejected the proposed standards of review advocated by both the EEOC and Mach Mining. The EEOC had argued for the most minimalist form of review of its conciliation efforts imaginable, asserting that the two letters it sent to the company established that it had met its obligation to attempt conciliation. The EEOC sent its first letter to Mach Mining after it issued its reasonable cause determination and notified the company that "[a] representative of this office will be in contact with each party in the near future to begin the conciliation process."8 The EEOC sent a second letter about a year later, stating that the legally mandated conciliation attempt had "occurred" and failed. The Supreme Court rejected the EEOC's argument, noting that these "bookend letters" failed to prove that conciliation efforts actually took place in the interim and that to treat these letters as sufficient would be "simply to accept the EEOC's say-so that it complied with the law." More is required for appropriate judicial review.

Mach Mining, in turn, argued that the Court should do a deep dive into the conciliation process and suggested that the Court adopt the "negotiated in good faith" standard set out in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Under this approach, the EEOC would have to notify the employer in every case of the minimum it would take to resolve the claim; lay out the factual and legal basis for all its positions, including the calculations underlying any monetary request; and refrain from making "take-it-or-leave-it" offers. The Court, however, rejected the analogy between the NLRA and Title VII, and noted that Mach Mining's proposed standard conflicts with the latitude Title VII gives the EEOC to pursue voluntary compliance with the law's commands. Furthermore, the Court noted that Mach Mining's suggested approach would impinge on Title VII's protection of the confidentiality of conciliation efforts, as it would necessitate the disclosure and use of evidence of such efforts in a later Title VII suit. The Court held that allowing disclosure of the efforts taken during the conciliation process would undermine the conciliation process itself, because confidentiality promotes candor in discussions and thus enhances the possibility for agreement.

Finally, the Supreme Court also set forth the remedy in the event a reviewing court determines the EEOC failed to conciliate. Specifically, if the reviewing court determines the EEOC failed to meet its statutory obligations (i.e., provide the requisite information about the charge or attempt to engage in a discussion about conciliating the claim), the court should order the EEOC to undertake the mandated efforts to obtain voluntary compliance, and stay the litigation while this occurs.

What This Means for Employers

Based on the Supreme Court's holding, the EEOC's conciliation efforts are subject to judicial review and employers can raise the EEOC's failure to conciliate as an affirmative defense. However, there is a relatively minimal burden on the EEOC to establish it has met its duty to conciliate. Moving forward, according to the Court, only a "barebones review" of conciliation efforts will be required, leaving the EEOC with "expansive discretion" to decide "how to conduct conciliation efforts" and "when to end them." Employers thus face the potential risk that the EEOC will make extreme settlement demands during the conciliation process, with the potential threat of litigation, particularly when employers are faced with reasonable cause findings based on the agency's systemic investigation. Moving forward, a court will only look "to whether the EEOC attempted to confer about a charge and not to what happened (i.e. statements made or positions taken) during those discussions." Moreover, in the event of a subsequent EEOC lawsuit, the remedy if the employer successfully raises the "failure to conciliate" defense is not dismissal. Rather, the EEOC merely will be required to undertake the mandated conciliation efforts. Despite these concerns, it remains in the best interest of both the employer and the EEOC to engage in good-faith conciliation efforts at the charge phase prior to any potential litigation between the parties.


1. No. 13-1019, 2015 WL 1913911 (Apr. 29, 2015).

2. Mach Mining v. EEOC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25454 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2013).

3. 409 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005).

4. 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25454 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2013).

5. 2015 WL 1913911 at *3.

6. See EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F. 3d 1256, 1249 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that the EEOC must, among other things, "respond in a reasonable and flexible manner to the reasonable attitudes of the employer"); EEOC v. Keco Industries, Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1102 (6th Cir. 1984) (holding that the EEOC must "make a good faith effort to conciliate").

7. 2015 WL 1913911 at *6.

8. Id. at *7.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Kristy L. Peters
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions