However, employers are often frustrated because they are forced to devote considerable time, effort and resources to defending themselves against the often unfounded claims of workers who do not realize that employers have the right to discipline or terminate workers for legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons. Perhaps this is a sign of the times that many workers cannot accept discipline for inappropriate behaviour and can only conclude that discipline was imposed because of their gender, age, disability or alleged membership in another protected class. If an employer has legitimate defences against a charge, we are generally able to work with them to establish position statements and support the EEOC investigation process, with the ultimate result that the EEOC must dismiss the charge. Despite these shortcomings in the conciliation process, the EEOC has been able to reconcile cases, allowing companies to avoid the costs of litigation and advertisements related to legal action under the EEOC. The importance of the court conciliation procedure is that, when it passed anti-discrimination laws, Congress intended to develop a regulatory system that emphasizes voluntary procedures and informal mediations between an employer and the EEOC, unlike a regulatory system that encourages litigation. EEOC vs. Bloomberg L.P., 967 F.Supp. 2d 802, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Federal courts have expressly concluded that the conciliation process is intended to avoid overburdening the federal justice system — a system that is not the preferred way to resolve workplace discrimination disputes. Occidental Life Insurance Company v. EEOC, 432 U.S.

355, 367-68 (1977). The U.S. Supreme Court has gone so far as to describe the purpose of the EEOC as follows: the courts cannot go too far. The courts can only verify whether the EEOC has met these two requirements and cannot immerse itself in what has actually happened during the discussions. Given that the EEOC has an “expansionist discretion” in deciding whether to conduct and terminate mediation efforts, judicial review does not address the review of the EEOC`s behaviour during the process or whether it negotiated in good faith. Issues such as “the pace and duration of mediation efforts, the plasticity and firmness of their negotiating positions, the content of their discharge requests” and “strategic choices such as the offer to put all your cards on the table or respond to any counter-offer from an employer” are outside the scope of judicial review. It is important that employers are not required to accept the results of the EEOC or the elements of an EEOC application. If, in the end, an employer really does not understand the basis for determining the EEOC`s case, it must weigh the weight of its belief that it did not discriminate against the loading party against the ability to defend an EEOC enforcement action. If this analysis ultimately leads to an employer rejecting the EEOC`s conciliation request, which results in a subsequent EEOC process, the employer may argue a procedural defence that the EEOC did not proceed in good faith to a conciliation, thereby undermining its legal responsibility to seek an informal solution to discriminatory claims prior to the initiation of a dispute.