By Christopher DeGroff, Reema Kapur, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
At long last, the EEOC has finally issued its FY 2013 Performance and Accountability Report (“PAR”) on the evening of December 16, 2013. For those waiting to see an interesting twist on the EEOC’s internal metrics, the PAR did not disappoint. The PAR details the EEOC’s activities from October
Continue Reading Big Bang Or Fizzle? EEOC Internal Annual Report Reveals FY2013 Booms And Busts
By Christopher J. DeGroff and Julie G. Yap
The EEOC has been consistent in its message about conciliation: nobody should tell us how to conciliate our cases, not even the courts.
Conciliation is a mandatory step the EEOC must take before filing a case in federal court. It is designed to allow employers an opportunity to fix potential problems before
Continue Reading It’s Not Just A Speed Bump: The EEOC Loses Another Battle In Its War On The Mandatory Conciliation Process
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
While the Federal Government is shut down for now, the EEOC is trying shut down courts ability to review its conciliation efforts for good. As we previously reported here, the EEOC has aggressively pursued this theory by attacking defendants’ failure-to-conciliate affirmative defenses in two recent district court cases in the
Continue Reading The EEOC Continues Fight To “Shut Down” Judicial Review Of Conciliation Process
By Christopher DeGroff, Matthew Gagnon, and Reema Kapur
Will the Seventh Circuit immunize the entire conciliation process from judicial review? It will if the EEOC has its way.
The EEOC is pressing its view that the courts do not have any authority to review how it conducts the conciliation process. It has made this argument in two recent
By Rebecca Bromet, Christopher DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
On May 10, 2013, the EEOC released its Quality Control Plan (“QCP”) draft principles. In an accompanying press release, the EEOC said that the “[Quality Control Plan] will revise criteria to measure the quality of agency investigations and conciliations throughout the nation.”
If the Plan is a
By Courtney Bohl and Laura J. Maechtlen
Recently, in EEOC v. Wedco, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00523 (D. Nev. March 12, 1013), the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada considered whether the EEOC met is Title VII conciliation obligations when it ended conciliation negotiations after an employer, Wedco, Inc., refused to make a counter-offer to the EEOC’s settlement demand. The
By Rebecca Bromet, Christopher DeGroff, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
The EEOC’s Quality Control Plan for investigations and conciliation emerges on the heels of the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for FY 2013-2016. As we previously reported, the EEOC’s Strategic Plan will function as the blueprint for the Commission’s enforcement activity for the next several years. Because of the
Continue Reading Seyfarth Shaw Submits Guidance To The EEOC On Its Quality Control Plan
By Christopher DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
In a unique case, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently dismissed the EEOC’s allegations that the Defendant’s random drug and alcohol testing of probationary employees violated the ADA. The decision in EEOC v. United States Steel Corp., No. 10-CV-1283 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2013), is striking in
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Rebecca Bjork
The opinion of Judge Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, issued on January 22, 2013 in EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 09-CV-01330, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8268 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2013), should be required reading for all in-house and law firm
By Christopher DeGroff and Julie Yap
Despite a number of setbacks in 2011 and 2012, it appears that the EEOC is charging into 2013 with much the same playbook it adopted in years past: aggressive litigation tactics, unreasonable demands for settlement, and an expectation that it can investigate and litigate under its own special set of rules.