The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is used to getting its way since most employers would rather settle rather than face the expense and publicity risk of litigating against it. But sometimes, as I note in my new post at Cato, judges get a close look at just how weak the commission’s position is. And then…
More from Bob in comments: “Here’s the problem… major employers have made changes to their severance agreements to comport with the EEOC’s position in CVS. They EEOC has lost the case and still gotten the change they wanted. That’s all they care about. Much like the new Pregnancy Discrimination Act guidance which turns prior guidance and case law on its head. Major employers have already reacted in order to avoid costly litigation though the chances of a neutral court agreeing with the guidance are pretty low.”
4 Comments
Thankfully, when a federal agency overreachs like this, its leadership initiates a prompt, thorough, and introspective review, then imlements an immediate course correction. The employees responsible for wasting taxpayer dollars — not to mention the defense costs of the defendants — are discliplined or terminated altogether, because no federal job is more important than ensuring the sensible enforcement of the law.
I was interested in the final paragraph of the original article, detailing which President appointed the judges involved. The fact that this is so often an issue is itself an indictment of the American politico-legal system, in which governments use the law for social engineering, and in which it is taken for granted that judges will use the courts to push their own political agenda.
In most other parts of the world – at least among the democracies – judges are expected to apply the law dispassionately, and the only criteria for appointing them are experience and ability.
Here’s the problem….major employers have made changes to their severance agreements to comport with the EEOC’s position in CVS. The EEOC has lost the case and still gotten the change they wanted. That’s all they care about.
Much like the new Pregnancy Discrimination Act guidance which turns prior guidance and case law on its head. Major employers have already reacted in order to avoid costly litigation though the chances of a neutral court agreeing with the guidance are pretty low.