EEOC adjudication of workplace discrimination complaints
Overview: EEOC Adjudication of Workplace Discrimination Complaints
The EEOC is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), national origin, age (40+), disability, and genetic information.
Process of EEOC Adjudication:
Filing a Charge: Employee files a discrimination charge with EEOC.
Investigation: EEOC investigates the complaint, gathers evidence.
Determination: EEOC decides if there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred.
Conciliation: EEOC attempts to settle the dispute.
Litigation or Right to Sue: If no settlement, EEOC may file suit or issue a right-to-sue letter allowing the employee to sue.
Administrative Hearings: In some cases, EEOC refers complaints to an administrative judge, especially in federal sector cases under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Administrative Judge system.
Key Legal Issues in EEOC Adjudication:
Scope and limits of the EEOC’s investigatory authority.
Standards of proof and burden shifting in discrimination claims.
The role of conciliation and settlement.
EEOC’s discretionary power to litigate.
Judicial review of EEOC determinations.
Important Case Law in EEOC Adjudication
1. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Facts: Challenged employer’s use of aptitude tests and diplomas that disproportionately excluded Black employees.
Holding: Established the doctrine of disparate impact, holding that employment practices must be related to job performance.
Significance: The EEOC adopted this standard for investigating discrimination charges; the case expanded EEOC’s role in uncovering indirect discrimination.
2. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)
Facts: Plaintiff alleged racial discrimination in hiring.
Holding: Created a burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims.
Significance: EEOC uses this framework to evaluate complaints—plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case; employer must articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; then plaintiff must show pretext.
3. Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)
Facts: Challenged pay disparities affecting Black employees.
Holding: The Court held that disparate impact claims remain valid even if past discriminatory acts occurred before the current statutory period.
Significance: Supports EEOC’s authority to investigate historical discrimination affecting current pay practices.
4. EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002)
Facts: EEOC sought to bring discrimination claims under Title VII.
Issue: Whether arbitration agreements bar EEOC enforcement actions.
Holding: The Supreme Court held EEOC suits are not precluded by arbitration agreements.
Significance: Affirmed EEOC’s enforcement powers even when employees have agreed to arbitrate claims individually.
5. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012)
Facts: Dispute over whether pharmaceutical sales representatives qualify as “outside salesmen” exempt from overtime.
Holding: Court deferred to EEOC’s interpretation of employment statutes and regulations.
Significance: Demonstrates Chevron deference to EEOC’s interpretations in adjudicating discrimination claims.
6. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009)
Facts: White and Hispanic firefighters challenged New Haven’s discarding of a promotional exam due to racial disparities.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that disparate treatment claims arise if employers discard tests based on race without strong evidence of disparate impact.
Significance: Places limits on EEOC’s efforts to enforce disparate impact claims; affects EEOC’s investigatory and conciliatory role.
7. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015)
Facts: Abercrombie refused to hire a Muslim woman wearing a hijab due to dress code.
Holding: Employer may be liable if they intend to avoid accommodating religious practices, regardless of the applicant’s request.
Significance: Reinforces EEOC’s role in protecting religious discrimination and clarifies burden of proof in failure-to-accommodate claims.
Judicial Review of EEOC Adjudications
Courts generally give deference to EEOC’s reasonable interpretations of discrimination laws.
Courts review factual findings made by EEOC or administrative judges under the “substantial evidence” standard.
EEOC’s conciliation efforts and decisions not to sue are generally discretionary and not subject to judicial review.
However, constitutional due process concerns arise if EEOC or ALJs fail to provide fair procedures.
Summary Table of Key Principles from Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Case Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Disparate Impact Standard | Practices that disproportionately affect protected groups must be job-related | Griggs v. Duke Power |
| Burden-Shifting Framework | Framework for proving discrimination claims | McDonnell Douglas |
| EEOC Enforcement Powers | EEOC can sue even if arbitration agreements exist | EEOC v. Waffle House |
| Chevron Deference | Courts defer to EEOC’s reasonable statutory interpretations | Christopher v. SmithKline |
| Limits on Race-Based Decisions | Employers must have strong evidence to discard tests for disparate impact concerns | Ricci v. DeStefano |
| Religious Accommodation | Employers liable if intent to avoid accommodation exists | EEOC v. Abercrombie |
RELATED Blog
0 comments