By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC, 135 S.Ct. 1645 (2015), which held that a judge may review whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory obligation to attempt conciliation before filing suit, and that the scope
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff, and Matthew J. Gagnon
We are pleased to offer our loyal blog readers our analysis of the five most intriguing decisions in 2015 relative to EEOC lawsuits, along with a pre-publication preview of our annual report on developments and trends in EEOC-initiated litigation. That book, entitled
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
As we previously blogged about, most recently here and here, the EEOC has gone on the offensive challenging employer severance agreements. In one such case, the EEOC attacked CVS Pharmacy Inc.’s standard release agreement which contained terms more expansive in favor of employees than the EEOC’s
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
We have previously blogged about the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC, No. 13-1019 (U.S. April 29, 2015) (most recently here and here). As we predicted, the true impact of Mach Mining will not be known until
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
We’ve previously blogged about the impact the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015), most recently here and here. As we predicted, the true impact of Mach Mining will not be known until federal courts around the
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
Amid the flurry of major U.S. Supreme Court decisions that were decided towards the end of the 2014-2015 term, the landmark decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC, No. 13-1019 (U.S. April 29, 2015), seems like ancient history. As we previously blogged about, most recently here
![as1859[1]](https://www.workplaceclassaction.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/214/2015/04/as18591-2.gif)
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher Cascino, and Matthew Gagnon
On April 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, No. 13-1019 (U.S. 2015), and concluded, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, that federal courts have the authority to review the EEOC’s conciliation
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
On April 1, 2015 the EEOC’s New York District Office issued a Determination finding probable cause to believe that the City of New York’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services (“DCAS”) violated Title VII and the Equal Pay Act based on its “pattern of wage suppression and
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mach Mining v. EEOC.
Mach Mining v. EEOC may be one of the most important cases on EEOC litigation issues in years. The stakes are high for employers and workers alike (see pre-argument media reports here).
The precise
