Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mach Mining, LLC

Filing 164

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion (Doc. 144 ) for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Court's January 21, 2016 Order (Doc. 141 ) is DENIED. EEOCS Motion (Doc. 145 ) for Leave to File Firs t Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part to add Cline Resource and Development and Coal Field Transport, Inc. as defendants as long as the EEOC can demonstrate that they have had notice and an opportunity for conciliation in compliance with EEOC rules and regulations. The remainder of EEOC'sMotion to Amend with regard to Williamson Energy, LLC, Foresight Energy Services, LLC, Foresight Energy, LLC, Foresight Energy LP, Foresight Energy GP, LLC, Murray Energy Corp.and Murray American Coal, Inc . is DENIED. Finally, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion (Doc. 161 ) to File Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is MOOT as the Court reviewed and considered all exhibits prior to the hearing. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/22/2016. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MACH MINING, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-00879-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This Court conducted a hearing on August 16, 2016, in Benton, Illinois with regard to
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Motion (Doc. 144) for
Clarification or Reconsideration of the Court’s January 21, 2016 Order (Doc. 141); Motion (Doc.
145) for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; and Motion (Doc. 161) to File Supplement to
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.
1. Background.
The EEOC filed the instant suit on behalf of Brooke Petkas and a class of female
applicants who had applied for non-office jobs at Mach Mining. According to the EEOC, Mach
Mining “has never hired a single female for a mining-related position,” and “did not even have a
women’s bathroom on its mining premises.” (Doc. 32, p. 1-2). The complaint alleges that Mach
Mining’s Johnston City, Illinois, facility engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful
employment practices since at least January 1, 2006, in violation of Title VII, by engaging in sex
discrimination.
In its answer (Doc. 10), Mach Mining asserted the affirmative defense that the EEOC
failed to conciliate in good faith and that issue was decided by the United States Supreme Court

Page 1 of 7

which held:
We hold that a court may review whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory
obligation to attempt conciliation before filing suit. But we find that the scope of
that review is narrow, thus recognizing the EEOC’s extensive discretion to
determine the kind and amount of communication with an employer appropriate
in any given case. Mach Mining. LLC v. E.E.O.C., 135 S.Ct. 1645, 1649 (2015).
After the decision by the Supreme Court, the defendant filed a renewed Motion (Doc.
134) for Partial Summary Judgment which this Court denied (Doc. 140). The Plaintiff then filed
a Motion (Doc. 111) for Protective Order requesting that the Court preclude the EEOC, “from
conducting discovery related to Mach’s relationship with other entities – entities which EEOC
failed to include in the investigation and conciliation stage that prompted this action.”
Magistrate Judge Frazier conducted a telephone hearing and upon completion of the hearing,
denied defendant’s motion for a protective order. (Doc. 113).
Defendant appealed the Magistrate’s ruling. (Doc. 117). This Court found that the ruling
was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law; however, the Court sua sponte reconsidered the
motion and granted in part defendant’s motion. The Court found that:
The EEOC had the opportunity to request any and all documents – including
those on related entities – during its investigation of Mach Mining. There are no
allegations that Mach Mining failed to cooperate with that investigation or that
Mach Mining did not disclosure all requested information. As such, the EEOC
has had ample opportunity to seek information and include any related entity in its
investigation of Mach Mining. The EEOC’s Determination letter lists Mach
Mining; Cline Resource and Development Company; and Coal Field Transport,
Inc. as respondents. Any additional entities – whether or not related to Mach
Mining – are not parties to this action and would have insufficient notice that they
would be subject to discovery.” (Doc. 141, page 3).

Page 2 of 7

The Court then limited the EEOC from seeking discovery beyond the entities named in its
Determination letter and the EEOC now moves for clarification or reconsideration of that order.
1. Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Court’s January 21, 2016 Order.
Prior to hearing arguments, the Court noted that the January 21, 2016, did not intend to bar
the EEOC from seeking discovery from any third party that may have relevant information
pertaining to any issue in this matter. The holding of the January 21, 2016, was that the EEOC
was barred from additional discovery for the purpose of adding parties where no notice and
attempt at conciliation had been made. The Court then went on to hear arguments with regard to
the motion for reconsideration and motion to amend.
a. Standard for Reconsideration.
“A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own . . . in any circumstance,
although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances
such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’”
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (quoting Arizona v.
California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 n. 8 (1983)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (providing a non-final order
“may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the
parties’ rights and liabilities”). The decision whether to reconsider a previous ruling in the same
case is governed by the law of the case doctrine. Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 466
F.3d 570, 571-72 (7th Cir. 2006). The law of the case is a discretionary doctrine that creates a
presumption against reopening matters already decided in the same litigation and authorizes
reconsideration only for a compelling reason such as a manifest error or a change in the law that
reveals the prior ruling was erroneous. United States v. Harris, 531 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir.
2008); Minch v. City of Chicago, 486 F.3d 294, 301 (7th Cir. 2007).

Page 3 of 7

“Not to reconsider in such circumstances would condemn the parties to the unedifying
prospect of continued litigation when they knew that a possibly critical ruling was in error and,
unless it became moot in the course of the proceedings, would compel a reversal of the final
judgment at the end of the case.” Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 466 F.3d 570, 572 (7th
Cir. 2006).
b. Analysis.
EEOC argued that Mach Mining has, “a web of complex corporate relationships” and that
Mach Mining does not have physical control over the mining location and/or physical facilities.
These facilities are owned by other entities that EEOC is attempting to obtain discovery.
As stated before arguments, this Court did not seek to bar discovery from property
owners and EEOC is free to seek discovery from third parties. However, such discovery is
limited to Mach Mining’s hiring/firing and/or lack of female facilities.

EEOC can conduct any

discovery with regard to the merits of this case and/or discovery to third parties for legitimate
purposes. The only discovery that was barred was discovery with regard to adding defendants
that have not had notice and an opportunity for conciliation. Therefore, there is no basis for the
Court to reconsider its January 27, 2016, ruling.
2. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.
a. Standard.
The time for plaintiff to amend as a matter of right has passed, therefore, whether the
plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) provides that a plaintiff may amend his pleading only with the
opposing parties= written consent, which the plaintiff has not obtained, or leave of court, which
the Court should freely give when justice requires. “Generally, the decision whether to grant a

Page 4 of 7

party leave to amend the pleadings is a matter left to the discretion of the district court.” Orix
Credit Alliance v. Taylor Mach. Works, 125 F.3d 468, 480 (7th Cir. 1997). A court should allow
amendment of a pleading except where there is “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the
part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of
the amendment.” Orix Credit All., Inc. v. Taylor Mach. Works, Inc., 125 F.3d 468, 480 (7th Cir.
1997)(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).)
An amendment is futile if it would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1085 (7th Cir.
1997), or a motion for summary judgment, Bethany Pharmacal Co. v. QVC, Inc., 241 F.3d 854,
860 (7th Cir. 2001).
“If courts may not limit a suit by the EEOC to claims made in the administrative charge,
they likewise have no business limiting the suit to claims that the court finds to be supported by
the evidence obtained in the Commission’s investigation.” EEOC v. Caterpillar, Inc., 409 F.3d
831, 833 (7th Cir. 2005).
b. Analysis.
Counsel for EEOC argued that EEOC should be permitted to add as defendants Coal Field
Transports, Inc. and Cline Resource and Development, Co., (entities named in the Letter of
Determination and which EEOC states have had notice and an opportunity for conciliation) and
for relief purposes only, Williamson Energy, LLC, Foresight Energy Services, LLC, Foresight
Energy, LLC, Foresight Energy LP, Foresight Energy GP, LLC, Murray Energy Corp. and
Murray American Coal, Inc., (entities who have not had actual notice and an opportunity for
conciliation.)

Page 5 of 7

EEOC stated that it should be allowed to add these parties under the “single employer”
theory which provides that, “notice to one entity is notice to all.1” The EEOC argues that Mach
Mining is sufficiently aligned with the other entities to fall under the EEOC charge and cites to
several non-controlling cases.2 Although non-controlling, the Court considered the cases with
regard to their reasoning and determined that EEOC has not demonstrated that any of the
additional entities exercised a level of control over Mach Mining’s hiring/firing procedures
sufficient to bring them within the “single employer” theory.
Further, EEOC acknowledged at the hearing that actual notice and an opportunity for
conciliation had not been provided with regard to Williamson Energy, LLC, Foresight Energy
Services, LLC, Foresight Energy, LLC, Foresight Energy LP, Foresight Energy GP, LLC,
Murray Energy Corp. and Murray American Coal, Inc. nor did EEOC demonstrate that these
entities could provide relief unavailable through Mach Mining3.
The only entities EEOC acknowledged that had notice and an opportunity for conciliation
was Cline Resource and Development and Coal Field Transport, Inc. – the two entities named in
the EEOC Letter of Determination along with Mach Mining.

As such, if the EEOC can

demonstrate that these entities had actual notice and an opportunity for conciliation in
compliance with EEOC’s rules and regulations, EEOC is granted leave to amend their complaint
and to join Cline Resources and Development and Coal Field Transport, Inc. as defendants.

1

Doc. 145, pg 6.
EEOC v. Custom Companies, Inc., No. 02 C 3768, 2004 WL 1638223, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2004); Radimecky v.
Mercy Health Care & Rehab. Ctr., No. 00 C 2889, 2000 WL 1644510, at * 2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2000); Virgo v. Riviera
Beach Assocs., Ltd., 30 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1994); Darby v. Pasadena Police Dept., 939 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1991); Sosa
v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1459 (9th Cir. 1990); Chung v. Pomona Valley Community Hospital, 667 F.2d 788, 790 (9th
Cir. 1982); Tietgen v. Brown’s Westminister Motors, 921 f. Supp. 1495 (E.D. Va. 1996).
3
EEOC argument that these entities owned the property and facilities and therefore, could provide the injunctive
relief with regard to female facilities was moot based on the defendant’s representation that these facilities have
already been constructed – which the EEOC did not deny or state that any additional modifications may be
necessary.
2

Page 6 of 7

3. Conclusion.
Based on the above, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion (Doc.
144) for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Court’s January 21, 2016 Order (Doc. 141) is
DENIED.

EEOC’S Motion (Doc. 145) for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is

GRANTED in part to add Cline Resource and Development and Coal Field Transport, Inc. as
defendants as long as the EEOC can demonstrate that they have had notice and an opportunity
for conciliation in compliance with EEOC rules and regulations.

The remainder of EEOC’s

Motion to Amend with regard to Williamson Energy, LLC, Foresight Energy Services, LLC,
Foresight Energy, LLC, Foresight Energy LP, Foresight Energy GP, LLC, Murray Energy Corp.
and Murray American Coal, Inc. is DENIED. Finally, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission’s Motion (Doc. 161) to File Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint is MOOT as the Court reviewed and considered all exhibits prior to the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 8/22/2016
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 7 of 7