My personal interest in employer wellness programs increased a few months ago when my wife and I were offered significant health insurance premium savings through her employer by participating in such a program.
In EEOC v. DolGenCorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General, No. 13-CV-4307 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2015), Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois decided several discovery issues that have become increasingly common in EEOC-initiated disparate impact litigation.
Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched a pilot program called ACT Digital, which is the agency’s first initiative in digitizing its current paper-based charge process.
Last week, in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII authorizes judicial review of the EEOC’s efforts to satisfy its statutory duty to conciliate before filing suit against an employer.
Mach Mining, LLC V. EEOC: Supreme Court Holds EEOC Conciliation Efforts Are Subject to Limited Judicial Review
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said that conciliation efforts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are subject to limited judicial review.
Employer-sponsored “wellness programs” have become very popular, and are touted for the potential benefits to employees and employers alike: reduced absenteeism, lowered health care costs, reduced injuries, improved morale and productivity.
In Mach Mining LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the United States Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether the EEOC must attempt to conciliate an employer’s alleged violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before initiating a lawsuit against the employer and, if so, to what extent a court may review those conciliation efforts.
For the past couple years, the EEOC has been quite the thorn in the side of employers nationwide. While they’ve been more active than ever, they’re also very against the idea of being transparent in sharing their processes and strategies for going after employers. That may change, thanks to the Supreme Court.
We suggested last year that if you felt paranoid that the federal agencies seemed out to get employers, perhaps it was not paranoia at all.
We noted several weeks ago that the Ellen Pao case reminds us that sometimes settlement is better than the airing of sensitive allegations, and sometimes outrageous settlement demands require an aggressive defense, media attention notwithstanding.