Charging Party's Withdrawal of EEOC Complaint as Part of Individual Settlement Does Not Preclude Further Investigation by the EEOC
EEOC v. WATKINS MOTOR LINES (January 23, 2009)
.jpg)
Watkins Motor Lines (“Watkins”) experienced three episodes of employee-on-employee murder or attempted murder. It decided it would no longer employ persons who had been convicted of a crime of violence. A few months after Watkins adopted its new policy, Lyndon Jackson applied for a job. Jackson had a criminal record. Watkins declined to hire him for that reason. Jackson filed a complaint with the EEOC. The EEOC initiated an investigation. It sought to determine whether the policy had a disparate impact on minorities and, if so, whether it was a business necessity. In April 2005, the EEOC issued a subpoena to Watkins. Watkins and Jackson reached a settlement in January 2006, contingent on the EEOC abandoning the investigation. Jackson withdrew his charge – but the EEOC pressed on. It sought to enforce the subpoena in the district court. The court dismissed the EEOC’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that no valid charge was pending because the EEOC should have allowed Jackson to settle and withdraw his charge. The EEOC appeals.
In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Evans and Tinder reversed and remanded. Once an EEOC charge is filed, the agency determines the direction of the investigation. A charge can be withdrawn only with the consent of the agency and only when it will not defeat the purposes of Title VII. Here, the Court noted that a valid charge was filed and that the agency sought to continue the investigation even after Jackson wanted to withdraw. The agency did not commit error when it decided to continue the investigation of Watkins’ employment policy for the benefit of other applicants. The Court analogized the situation to those in which a representative class plaintiff settles with the defendants or in which settling parties want to vacate earlier judicial decisions in their case. The Supreme Court has rejected those arguments in Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper, United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty, and U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership. Watkins’ argument that forcing the EEOC to accept Jackson’s withdrawal will facilitate his settlement ignores the interests of the unrepresented persons. Watkins and Jackson are free to settle – and the EEOC is free to continue its investigation.
Michael Rigney practices in the law offices of GVC Ltd. in Chicago. In this blog, he reports on select