Seyfarth Submits Amicus Brief for the American Insurance Association to the U.S. Supreme Court in Important EEOC Case

CHICAGO (September 15, 2014) – Leading law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the American Insurance Association to the U.S. Supreme Court in Mach Mining v. EEOC, on September 11, 2014. The Seyfarth team of Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Lorie Almon, Christopher DeGroff, and Rebecca Bjork authored the amicus brief. You can view the full amicus brief here.

Commentators have pointed to Mach Mining v. EEOC as one of the most important EEOC cases to reach the Supreme Court in decades. It poses the issue of whether the EEOC’s obligation to conciliate in good faith with an employer before filing a lawsuit may be judicially reviewed by federal judges. The practical impact of the Supreme Court’s resolution of that issue may dramatically impact the Government’s litigation program and tactics. As a result, the case is being followed closely by employers.

Seyfarth’s amicus brief questions the underpinning of the Seventh Circuit’s decision – that employers asserting the failure-to-conciliate defense deflect judges from the merits and that there need not be any judicial review of the Commission’s pre-lawsuit conduct because the EEOC follows its obligations. The brief argues that the modern American judicial system does not work in that manner and that the Seventh Circuit’s ruling should be reversed.

The brief outlines two core arguments against the Seventh Circuit’s decision:

1. The Seventh Circuit improperly construed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to forbid judicial review of the EEOC’s satisfaction of the conciliation obligation. Contrary to Congress’s view that conciliation proceedings must be conducted as a vehicle to foster judicial economy, the Seventh Circuit decided that the requirement of conciliation proceedings was merely a formality that mostly benefitted employers who sought the dismissal of claims when the EEOC neglected to follow mandatory procedure.

2. In suggesting that a contrary construct of the Civil Rights Act leads defendants to litigate side issues and delay justice, the Seventh Circuit ignored the interests of employers and their carriers to settle meritorious claims and reduce their litigation costs. The Seventh Circuit failed to consider how the ruling impacts multiple constituents, including already over-burdened federal courts, which will now face more EEOC litigation; employers who face such claims; and the insurance industry, which bears the cost of defending the time-consuming and expensive litigation through employment practices liability insurance.

In the brief’s conclusion, it asserts that the Seventh Circuit’s unprecedented ruling that the EEOC may essentially conciliate in bad faith and subsequently litigate as it pleases is contrary to the Congressional intent of Title VII. Furthermore, allowing for judicial review of conciliation is the best approach, since it encourages the EEOC to conduct thorough, good faith investigations that will lead to more fruitful conciliation proceedings.

Oral arguments in Mach Mining v. EEOC have yet to be scheduled.