MacH Mining, LLC v. EEOC

**Question presented** When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wants to sue an employer for sex discrimination, it must first try to settle the dispute through “informal conciliation” (a kind of negotiation). The issue in this case was: *Can a federal court look at whether the EEOC actually carried out that required conciliation step, and if so, how much can the court examine?* **Holding** The Supreme Court said **yes** – a court may review whether the EEOC fulfilled its legal duty to attempt conciliation before filing suit. However, the review is **limited**: the court only checks that the EEOC gave the employer proper notice of the charge and a genuine chance to discuss and possibly fix the problem. The Court did not allow a deeper look into the EEOC’s internal decision‑making or the substance of the negotiation. **Why the Court reached that result** 1. **Statutory language matters** – The law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) explicitly says the EEOC “must first endeavor to eliminate” alleged discrimination by informal methods. Because the statute makes this a *mandatory* step before a lawsuit, Congress intended courts to be able to enforce it. 2. **Presumption of judicial review** – Generally, when Congress gives an agency a duty, courts are presumed to have the power to check whether the agency performed that duty unless the law says otherwise. Nothing in the statute indicated that the EEOC should police itself, so the presumption stands. 3. **What can be reviewed** – The Court said the only manageable question for a judge is whether the EEOC: * told the employer exactly what the discrimination allegation was, and * offered the employer a real opportunity to talk about it and possibly resolve it voluntarily. If the employer can show concrete evidence that these two things did not happen, the judge can order the EEOC to redo the conciliation. The Court rejected a broader “good‑faith” test that would require examining the quality of the EEOC’s negotiations or the confidentiality of the discussions, because that would intrude on the EEOC’s wide discretion and violate the statute’s confidentiality protections. **Vote breakdown** The opinion notes that Justice Kagan delivered a **unanimous** decision. No dissenting opinions were filed. **Bottom line in plain language** Before the EEOC can sue a company for sex discrimination, it must at least inform the company of the claim and give it a chance to talk it out. If a company says the EEOC didn’t do that, a court can step in and check whether those basic steps were taken, but it cannot second‑guess the EEOC’s overall strategy or the private details of any negotiations.