Judges can review EEOC bids to settle job bias
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that federal judges have authority, though limited, to make sure the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying hard enough to settle charges of job discrimination before filing lawsuits against employers.
The justices said lower courts can review whether government lawyers were being reasonable during settlement negotiations with companies accused of bias.
Employers have closely watched the case. Many companies have said the EEOC has been overly aggressive in recent years, rushing to file costly lawsuits without trying to resolve disputes informally.
The EEOC has a legal duty to try settling cases first, but the question was how much a court could peer into those negotiations to make sure the EEOC was acting in good faith.
The Obama administration argued that courts should have no role in probing confidential settlement talks. But business groups called for expansive review.
The decision is a narrow victory for an Illinois mining company sued by the EEOC for failing to hire qualified female job applicants. The government alleges that Mach Mining has never hired any female miners since it began operations in 2006, despite getting applications from qualified women.
The company wanted the suit thrown out because it claims EEOC officials didn’t try hard enough to negotiate a settlement before going to court. The administration argued that it is solely up to the EEOC to decide whether terms of a settlement are acceptable.
Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan adopted a middle ground. She said the scope of judicial review is limited and respects the “expansive discretion” the law gives to the EEOC over settlement talks, known as conciliation.
Kagan said the EEOC must inform an employer about specific charges of discrimination and which employees have suffered. The agency must try to engage the employer in a discussion to give the company a chance to stop practices that may discriminate against racial minorities, women or other protected groups.
Kagan said the commission can simply present a sworn affidavit saying it has met these requirements. If a lower court finds the EEOC has fallen short, it can require the commission to resume settlement talks.
EEOC General Counsel David Lopez called the decision “great news for victims of discrimination” and said he was pleased the court “rejected the intrusive review” proposed by Mach Mining.
Federal law requires the EEOC initially to try to stop illegal employment practices by “informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion.” But the law allows the EEOC to go ahead with a lawsuit if it has been unable to reach a conciliation agreement “acceptable to the commission.”
A federal judge agreed to review whether the EEOC’s attempt to settle the case against Mach Mining was “sincere and reasonable,” but the government objected. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying a company could not raise ineffective settlement effort as a defense.
The Supreme Court’s ruling settles a split among appeals courts as to how deeply judges can probe the EEOC’s settlement efforts. Some courts have required a minimal level of “good faith,” while others have performed a more thorough analysis. The 7th Circuit was the first appeals court to rule that employers cannot try to dismiss EEOC lawsuits by claiming conciliation efforts were lacking.
Justices uphold limits on judges’ appeals for campaign cash
By Mark Sherman and Sam Hananel
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states can ban judicial candidates from personally asking for campaign contributions, in a decision aimed at protecting the impartiality of elected judges.
The justices’ 5-4 ruling means that restrictions on soliciting campaign cash can remain in place in 30 states that elect state and local judges. In all, 39 states hold elections for judges and some allow personal appeals for donations.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a rare break with fellow conservatives, said in his majority opinion that laws barring judicial candidates from personally asking for campaign cash do not run afoul of First Amendment free speech rights. He said the state has a compelling interest “in preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”
“Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,” Roberts wrote. “A state may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor — and without having personally asked anyone for money.”
The court’s four liberal justices joined Roberts in the majority.
In a sharp dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called the Florida rule a “wildly disproportionate restriction upon speech” that should be struck down under the First Amendment.
Roberts, who has written other major First Amendment decisions protecting speech rights, might at first glance be a surprising fifth vote to uphold the limits on judicial fundraising. He also previously sided with conservatives in the court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that freed corporations and labor unions from some limits on campaign spending.
But this case could be seen to bring out his role as the leader of the judicial branch, even if he and other appointed federal judges are not affected by the case. Roberts at several points drew a distinction between candidates for judgeships and other offices. The ruling took note of concerns that lawyers, in particular, might have a hard time refusing to contribute when a judge personally asks for campaign money.
Scalia noted in his dissent that the high court in recent years has used the First Amendment to protect depictions of animal torture, sale of violent video games to children and people who lied about having won military medals.
“It’s no great mystery what is going on here,” Scalia wrote. “The judges of this court ... evidently consider the preservation of public respect for the courts a policy objective of the highest order. So it is — but so too are preventing animal torture, protecting the innocence of children, and honoring valiant soldiers.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy said he wanted to “underscore the irony in the court’s having concluded that the very First Amendment protections judges must enforce should be lessened when a judicial candidate’s own speech is at issue.”
The case of Lanell Williams-Yulee of Tampa, Florida, arose after she signed a mass mailing asking for money for her campaign for a local judgeship and posted the letter on her website. The appeal didn’t bring in a penny, but Williams-Yulee received a public reprimand for violating a Florida Bar rule that bans candidates for elected judgeships from personally soliciting donations.
Lawyers for Williams-Yulee had argued that the rule has a chilling effect on political speech and does nothing to prevent a candidate’s campaign committee from requesting contributions.
Lower courts have been split on the issue in the Florida case.
The justices had previously struck down limits on what judicial candidates can say during campaigns. In 2002, the court struck down rules that were aimed at fostering impartiality among judges and barred candidates for elected judgeships from speaking out on controversial issues.
But in 2009, the court held in a case from West Virginia that elected judges could be forced to step aside from ruling on cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias. Roberts dissented in that case.
The Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance reform advocacy group, praised the decision, but said it was disappointed that “what the court rightly finds untenable in the judicial context — responsiveness to campaign donors — it would tolerate for legislative and executive candidates.”
The case is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 13-1499.
