Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Labor Relations/Collective Bargaining
The discussion below is a review of the case between Mach Mining and EEOC
A close look at the sex discrimination case against March Mining LLC, EEOC, and the respondent decided that there was enough ground to believe that the company engaged in hiring malpractices. Mach Mining LLC and the complainant were requested to attend conciliatory proceedings. They were also notified that an appointed representative would contact them to start the meetings. After one year, Mach Mining was sent a letter notifying them that the conciliation process had hit a deadlock and, thus, failed. The commission formally sued Mach Mining in the federal court. Mach Mining on its part claimed that the commission had not made the conciliatory efforts in good faith. The commission sought to demonstrate that it had fulfilled its judicial responsibility, and pointed out the act of sending Mach Mining the letters (MACH MINING, LLC v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION).
The District court stated that it would examine the adequacy of the commission's efforts. However, it gave the commission the leeway to appeal immediately. The Seventh Circuit advised that it was...
The constitution directs the EOCC to try to pursue conciliatory process in the event of noting of unlawful employment practice. The case in question demands that to define when and how those efforts can be reviewed by the courts. In our view, the court should determine whether EOCC fulfilled its statutory obligation of trying to reconcile the parties before it files a suit. It is, however, evident that that EOCC has too much discretion that allows it to decide the amount of communication it can establish with the employer in any case.
Legal Principles
The court did not give a precise test to determine whether EOCC's efforts were satisfactory. However, it provided helpful guidance with regard to the efforts made by EOCC and the extent of the judicial review relating to such efforts (Supreme Court's Decision in Mach Mining Impacts Employers' Approach to Conciliation with the EEOC - The National Law Review):
• EOCC must inform the employer the nature of malpractice committed, the person whose tights have been infringed and • The EOCC must also facilitate a chance for the employer to voluntarily comply. The courts were given a free hand to decide how they would review the informal approaches applied by EOCC. The court saw it fit that the…
References
(n.d.). Home - Supreme Court of the United States. MACH MINING, LLC v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. Retrieved September 2, 2016, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1019_c1o2.pdf
(2015). National Law Review: latest business law news and legal analysis. Supreme Court's Decision in Mach Mining Impacts Employers' Approach to Conciliation with the EEOC - The National Law Review. Retrieved September 2, 2016, from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-s-decision-mach-mining-impacts-employers-approach-to-conciliation-eeoc
Supreme Court and Public Opinion The Supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789 as part of the basic three sections of the American governmental system: Executive (President and Staff), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court System). Each U.S. State also has a supreme court, which is the highest law for interpreting cases that move into that jurisdiction. Essentially, the Supreme Court has the ultimate jurisdiction over all federal
While the decision has hung over states as one national standard, it infringes the essential principles of federalism and separation of powers that are rooted in the country's constitutional system (Silversten, 2011). During the time that the Supreme Court made this ruling, the state of Georgia basically had the same position on punishment for the crime of rape with many states. Actually, very few states permitted the executions or enforcement
Supreme Court Case Supreme Court Decision in Re Waterman, 910 2D (N.H. 2006) The Case The case addressed in this section of the report is that of Supreme Court case In Re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006). In this case, Tracy Waterman, working as a trooper for the New Hampshire State Policy was informed on August 29, 3003 that Vicky Lemere, the wife of one of Waterman's fellow troopers, informed Lieutenant Nedeau,
Supreme Court cases (Muller V. Oregon) women's right Why it was an issue of national importance The Muller v. Oregon case was among the most crucial Supreme Court cases in the U.S. during the progressive regime. The case held an Oregon law that limited the working days for female wage employees to a maximum of ten hours. In 1908, this case created a precedent to expand access of national activities into the
Supreme Court of Mississippi. CASH DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. v. James NEELY. Facts In 1973, James Neely started working for Cash Distributing Co., a company that distributed Anheuser-Busch products in several parts of the United States. The company had offices in Columbus, Starkville and Tupelo. During the 1990s, James Neely was heading the Columbus office. By this time, Anheuser-Busch started to look more closely at the way some of its rules were enforced,
Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was an extremely important one, and one which set a significant precedent in the United States that would not be overturned until the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the middle of the 20th century. The former case set the precedent for what was known as the separate but equal doctrine. The principle question considered in this case was