Penn State
Lewis Katz Building, University Park, PA
twitter   facebook   linkedin   Instagram   webmail
Give Now Apply Now

Penn State Law Civil Rights Clinic files amicus brief in Supreme Court case


UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- Penn State Law’s Civil Rights Appellate Clinic recently filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 13-1019. 

The clinic was counsel of record and filed the brief on behalf of six national public interest groups:  the Impact Fund, the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), AARP, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Disability Rights California, and Public Counsel. These organizations represent employees, workers, consumers, persons with disabilities, and civil rights plaintiffs, who often must depend on the EEOC to vindicate their rights.

In Mach Mining, the Supreme Court will decide whether it should provide employers with an affirmative defense in cases where they contend that the EEOC did not engage in enough conciliation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires that the EEOC try to conciliate, or negotiate, an end to an employer’s unlawful employment practices before filing suit. Advocating for the EEOC, the clinic took the position that judicial review of conciliation efforts would jeopardize employee rights and undermine Congress’s intent in enacting the conciliation provision of Title VII. 

As counsel for amici, the clinic supported the position taken by the U.S. solicitor general on behalf of the EEOC further demonstrating how an affirmative defense and judicial review of conciliation efforts would contradict the terms of Title VII, which impose criminal penalties on persons who disclose confidential conciliation communications; how an affirmative defense could unfairly punish victims of discrimination represented by the EEOC by having their suits dismissed for no fault of their own; and how district courts have the authority to encourage further conciliation if they determine the EEOC’s initial efforts were insufficient. 

Third-year student Seth Evans noted, “The issue presented in this case, while technical, is of critical importance to employees who, because of a lack of resources, have to rely on the EEOC to vindicate their right to be free from discrimination.” 

In addition to Evans, the clinic students include Ryan Fullerton, Stephanie Sweeney, Dwayne Wright, and Justin Zabielski. Under the supervision of clinic director and law professor Michael Foreman, the students conducted the initial research and contributed to numerous drafts before the brief was finalized. 

“I'm grateful to be part of an educational opportunity in which I worked with classmates in a team environment to produce a brief that will be potentially considered by the most prestigious legal minds in the United States of America,” Zabielski said.

Sweeney noted how her experience working on the Mach Mining brief differs from the typical theory-based law school experience: “Late nights and working weekends—not so unusual for law students—have resulted this time not just in a better grade or an individual achievement, but in a tangible product that we can be proud of as a group, which may have a real effect on the protection of the rights of victims of employment discrimination.”

Mach Mining not yet been scheduled for oral argument.

Contacts:

Wyatt Dubois
wed112@psu.edu
Work Phone:
814-865-9030
Share this story
mail