Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC:</i></b> The Supreme Court Approves Limited Review of EEOC's Conciliation Efforts
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to try to conciliate claims that an employer has engaged in an unlawful employment practice before the EEOC files suit. Last April, in Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the EEOC may raise the agency's failure to engage in conciliation as a defense. It reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had held ' contradicting other circuits ' that the EEOC's conduct of the conciliation process is not judicially reviewable.
The Supreme Court made clear, however, that the standard under which courts may review the EEOC's conciliation efforts is very deferential. It cautioned that courts should not probe the EEOC's methods or the substance of its positions, but should determine only whether the agency notified the defendant of the alleged violation and attempted conciliation. It also stated that the appropriate remedy for a failure to conciliate is a stay of litigation, not dismissal of the action. Thus, although the prospect of judicial review may help ensure that the EEOC comes to the table to negotiate before filing suit, the failure of conciliation is unlikely in the future to provide a meaningful defense in litigation except in very narrow circumstances.
The EEOC's Duty to Conciliate
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.