The EEOC is legally obliged to try to resolve findings of discrimination through “informal methods of conference, mediation and conviction.” See 42 U.S.C 2000th-5. After the parties have been informed in writing that the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation concludes that there is a “reasonable reason” to believe that discrimination has occurred, the parties are invited to participate in conciliation interviews. During conciliation, your investigator will work with you and the loading party to develop an appropriate way to combat discrimination. We recommend that you take this last opportunity to resolve the charge before the EEOC in light of the litigation case. A Supreme Court opinion of Mach Mining, which rejects the EEOC`s argument, would give even stronger reasons for employers` applications for employment on the basis of ineffective mediation efforts. Of course, a finding to the contrary will allow employers to accept the injustices that occur at one time or another in the EEOC conciliation procedure. As has been described, the intent of the conciliation procedure seems entirely reasonable and logical. The frustration of conciliation therefore lies not in its objective, but in the application of the EEOC, which often requires employers to assess EEOC`s conciliation requests, which are extremely important, without knowing what evidence the EEOC has to support its causes. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is proposing a regulation that promises to improve the efficiency and transparency of the EEOC conciliation procedure. In theory, the changes will help businesses strengthen billing valuations.
However, the regulation may also identify new issues. The importance of the court conciliation procedure is that, when it passed anti-discrimination laws, Congress intended to develop a regulatory system that emphasizes voluntary procedures and informal mediations between an employer and the EEOC, unlike a regulatory system that encourages litigation. EEOC vs. Bloomberg L.P., 967 F.Supp. 2d 802, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Federal courts have expressly concluded that the conciliation process is intended to avoid overburdening the federal justice system — a system that is not the preferred way to resolve workplace discrimination disputes. Occidental Life Insurance Company v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 367-68 (1977).
The U.S. Supreme Court went so far as to describe the purpose of the EEOC as follows: if the worker is not represented by a lawyer, he will ask for certain things because he found that the employer had broken the law.