By: Derek Hawkins//December 21, 2015//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Case No: 14-3653
Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges
Practice Area: Violation of Title VII
EEOC improperly interprets powers un Title VII and fails to conciliate its claim before bringing suit.
“If we were to adopt the EEOC’s interpretation of Section 707(a), the EEOC would never be required to engage in conciliation before filing a suit because it could always contend that it was acting pursuant to its broader power under Section 707(a). In other words, the EEOC’s position reads the conciliation requirement out of the statute. But Congress has made it clear that it prefers for the EEOC to resolve Title VII disputes by informal methods of dispute resolution and to only resort to litigation when those methods fail. See Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645, 1651 (2015) (observing that conciliation is “a key component of the statutory scheme” and that “Congress chose cooperation and voluntary compliance as its preferred means” of bringing “employment discrimination to an end” (citations, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 368, 379 (1977) (observing that “the EEOC is required by law to refrain from commencing a civil action until it has discharged its administrative duties” and that “Congress, in enacting Title VII, chose cooperation and voluntary compliance … as the preferred means of achieving its goals” (internal citation, quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); Alexander v. Gardner‐Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974) (observing that Congress created the EEOC to give parties “an opportunity to settle disputes through conference, conciliation, and persuasion” before resorting to litigation); EEOC v. Liberty Trucking Co., 695 F.2d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 1982) (describing conciliation as the EEOC’s “most im‐ portant function”).”
Affirmed.