Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) procedures
š I. What is the EEOC?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is tasked with enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against employees or job applicants based on:
Race
Color
Religion
Sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity)
National origin
Age (40 or older)
Disability
Genetic information
The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints, attempts to mediate disputes, issues determinations, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees.
š II. Key EEOC Procedures
1. Filing a Charge
Individuals must file a charge of discrimination (not a lawsuit) with the EEOC.
Usually required within 180 or 300 days from the date of the alleged violation.
2. Investigation
The EEOC investigates whether there is āreasonable causeā to believe discrimination occurred.
It may request documents, interview witnesses, and visit the workplace.
3. Mediation
Before investigation, parties may be offered voluntary mediation.
4. Determination
If no violation is found: EEOC issues a āNotice of Right to Sueā.
If a violation is found: EEOC attempts conciliation between employer and employee.
5. Litigation
If conciliation fails, the EEOC may choose to file a lawsuit.
Alternatively, it issues a Right to Sue letter, allowing the individual to sue within 90 days.
š§¾ III. Key Case Laws Shaping EEOC Procedures
Here are more than five major cases where courts examined or clarified the powers and procedures of the EEOC.
1. EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. (2002)
Citation: 534 U.S. 279
Issue: Can the EEOC sue on behalf of an employee bound by an arbitration agreement?
Facts:
An employee signed an arbitration agreement with Waffle House. After he was fired, the EEOC sued the company for disability discrimination on his behalf.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the EEOCās enforcement authority is independent of the employee's arbitration agreement.
The EEOC can pursue victim-specific relief (e.g., back pay) regardless of private contracts.
Significance:
Expanded the EEOC's power to litigate independently.
Affirmed that EEOC actions serve the public interest, not just individual grievances.
2. Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC (2015)
Citation: 575 U.S. 480
Issue: Is the EEOCās conciliation process subject to judicial review?
Facts:
Mach Mining argued the EEOC didnāt attempt good-faith conciliation before suing them for sex discrimination in hiring.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that courts can review whether the EEOC made a genuine effort to conciliate.
However, the court's review is limited ā not to question negotiation strategies, but to ensure EEOC gave notice and tried to resolve the issue.
Significance:
Enforced a check on EEOC procedure without undermining its discretion.
Confirmed conciliation is a mandatory procedural step.
3. EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. (1984)
Citation: 466 U.S. 54
Issue: Scope of EEOCās subpoena powers during investigation.
Facts:
Shell challenged an EEOC subpoena as overbroad, saying it requested irrelevant information.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the EEOCās broad investigatory powers.
As long as the request is relevant and not unduly burdensome, courts must enforce the subpoena.
Significance:
Strongly supported the EEOCās right to access company records.
Reiterated the investigativeānot adjudicativeānature of EEOC inquiries.
4. Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. EEOC (1977)
Citation: 432 U.S. 355
Issue: Statute of limitations on EEOC lawsuits
Facts:
Occidental argued the EEOC waited too long (several years) to file suit after investigating a charge.
Ruling:
The Court held there is no specific federal time limit for the EEOC to file suit, as long as it does so within a reasonable time.
State law statutes of limitations donāt apply to the federal EEOC.
Significance:
Granted the EEOC flexibility in conducting investigations before litigation.
Critics say this opens the door to delays that disadvantage employers.
5. EEOC v. United Parcel Service (UPS) (2000s)
Various decisions over UPSās treatment of deaf employees
Issue: Reasonable accommodation under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
Facts:
EEOC sued UPS, alleging it failed to accommodate deaf drivers and workers by not providing interpreters and accessible training.
Ruling:
Courts upheld many EEOC claims, leading to settlements and court orders requiring UPS to modify policies.
Significance:
Demonstrated the EEOCās active role in disability rights enforcement.
Reinforced employer obligations to provide accommodations.
6. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015)
Citation: 575 U.S. 768
Issue: Religious accommodation and employer intent
Facts:
A Muslim applicant was denied employment allegedly due to her hijab, which violated the storeās ālook policy.ā She didnāt explicitly request an accommodation.
Ruling:
Supreme Court held that actual knowledge of a need for accommodation is not required.
If a decision is motivated by a religious practice, it violates Title VII.
Significance:
Expanded protection for religious expression.
Clarified that employer motive, not knowledge, is key to discrimination claims.
š IV. Summary Table: EEOC Case Law
| Case | Issue | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| EEOC v. Waffle House (2002) | Arbitration vs. EEOC authority | EEOC can litigate regardless of private arbitration agreements |
| Mach Mining v. EEOC (2015) | Conciliation review | Courts can ensure EEOC made genuine conciliation attempts |
| EEOC v. Shell Oil (1984) | Subpoena power | EEOC has wide investigatory powers if requests are relevant |
| Occidental Life v. EEOC (1977) | Timing of EEOC lawsuits | No strict time bar; reasonable delay acceptable |
| EEOC v. UPS | Disability accommodations | Companies must accommodate disabled employees; EEOC can enforce ADA |
| EEOC v. Abercrombie (2015) | Religious discrimination | Employer motivation matters, not explicit request |
ā V. Conclusion
The EEOC plays a crucial role in enforcing workplace discrimination laws, and its procedures are shaped significantly by judicial decisions. These cases establish that:
The EEOC has strong investigatory and litigation powers.
It must comply with procedural duties, especially conciliation.
Courts respect the EEOCās discretion but can impose checks.
The EEOC's authority is independent of private agreements (like arbitration).
Employee rights are favored, especially under Title VII and ADA.
RELATED Blog
0 comments