Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_13-cv-00181/USCOURTS-akd-3_13-cv-00181-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

KEVIN D. MCDOWELL,

Intervenor-Plaintiff,

v.

PARKER DRILLING COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:13-cv-00181-SLG

ORDER RE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court at Docket 202 is Parker Drilling’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment as to EEOC’s Claims. The EEOC opposed on February 17, 2015, and Parker 

Drilling replied on February 27, 2015.1 Also before the Court at Docket 204 is Parker 

Drilling’s Motion for Judicial Notice. Oral argument was not requested on either motion 

and was not necessary to the Court’s decision. For the reasons stated below, Parker 

Drilling’s motion for partial summary judgment will be denied. Parker Drilling’s motion for 

judicial notice will be granted in part and denied in part. 

BACKGROUND

In January 2010 Plaintiff-Intervenor Kevin McDowell sought employment with 

Parker Drilling’s Alaska operations. Mr. McDowell is blind in his left eye. Parker Drilling 

1 Docket 218 (Opp.); Docket 252 (Reply). 

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 15
extended a conditional offer of employment as a Tool Pusher to Mr. McDowell, but 

withdrew that offer after it received the results of a post-offer medical evaluation that found 

him unfit for the position based on his visual impairment.

2 Mr. McDowell filed a charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC in February 2010. In June 2010 Mr. McDowell and Parker 

Drilling participated in a mediated settlement conference that did not include the EEOC 

and did not resolve Mr. McDowell’s claims.3

Between April 2010 and September 2012, the EEOC investigated Mr. McDowell’s 

charge.4 On September 14, 2012, the EEOC issued a determination concluding that 

there were sufficient facts to substantiate Mr. McDowell’s charge.5 The EEOC and Parker 

Drilling then exchanged conciliation correspondence in an effort to settle Mr. McDowell’s 

charge, the details of which are recounted in the discussion below. On April 12, 2013, 

the EEOC informed Parker Drilling that it had “determined that efforts to conciliate . . . 

have been unsuccessful.”6 This suit was filed by the EEOC on September 18, 2013.7

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it is a 

civil action arising under federal law.

2 Docket 1 (Compl.) at 3–4 ¶ 9.

3 Docket 202 (Motion) at 2–3.

4 Docket 203-4 (EEOC Caselog). 

5 Docket 203-5 (Determination Letter).

6 Docket 203-12 (Ex. L).

7 Docket 1 (Compl.). 

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 2 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 15
II. Legal Standards

Parker Drilling’s primary motion is styled as a motion for partial summary judgment. 

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that in civil suits to enforce federal discrimination 

laws, “[g]enuine investigation, reasonable cause determination and conciliation are 

jurisdictional conditions precedent to suit by the EEOC.”8 A recent, comprehensive 

analysis by the United States District Court for the District of Hawai’i examined whether 

the issue of adequate conciliation is a jurisdictional question or a question related to the 

merits of an EEOC action. That district court concluded that the issue is one of subject 

matter jurisdiction.

9 The Court agrees with that analysis, adopts it, and accordingly treats 

Parker Drilling’s motion as a subject matter jurisdictional challenge under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(1). 

FRCP 12(b)(1) allows a party to seek dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Parker Drilling maintains that the EEOC’s claims against it should be 

dismissed due to the EEOC’s failure to meet its prerequisite obligation to adequately 

conciliate prior to filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5b. 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) provides in relevant part:

Whenever a charge is filed by or on behalf of a person 

claiming to be aggrieved . . . the Commission shall serve a 

notice of the charge (including the date, place and 

circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice) 

on such employer . . . (hereinafter referred to as the 

“respondent”) within ten days, and shall make an investigation 

thereof. . . . If the Commission determines after such 

investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that the 

charge is true, the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate 

any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal 

methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. 

8 EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 608 (9th Cir. 1982). 

9 EEOC v. La Rana Hawaii, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 1038–44 (D. Hawai’i 2012).

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 3 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 3 of 15
Section 2000e-5(f)(1) provides in relevant part:

If within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commission 

. . . the Commission has been unable to secure from the 

respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the 

Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action against 

any respondent not a government, governmental agency, or 

political subdivision named in the charge.

Several circuit courts have interpreted these provisions to create a “failure-to-conciliate 

defense.” Within these courts, some circuits evaluate conciliation under a “searching 

three-part inquiry” while others require only “a minimal level of good faith” in conciliation 

efforts prior to the filing of suit.10 In contrast to these circuits, the Seventh Circuit has held 

that the EEOC’s efforts to conciliate are not subject to judicial review, a holding currently 

under review by the Supreme Court.11 The Ninth Circuit has not addressed this aspect 

of § 2000e-5, and the district courts in this circuit have applied various approaches.12

The split between the circuits and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari 

demonstrate that reasonable minds have reached different conclusions on the legal 

import of § 2000e-5’s conciliation provisions. But this Court need not determine the 

contours of § 2000e-5’s requirements if the EEOC’s conciliation attempts with Parker 

Drilling in this case meet the most rigorous of the approaches applied by any of the circuits

that have addressed the issue.

13 Accordingly, the Court examines the EEOC’s efforts in 

this case under that approach. 

10 See EEOC v. Mach Min., LLC, 738 F.3d 171, 182 (7th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases).

11 Id. at 178, cert. granted 134 S. Ct. 2872 (2014).

12 See La Rana Hawaii, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 1044–45 (collecting cases). 

13 Cf. id. at 1045 (“The Court need not decide the appropriate standard, because, under either the 

deferential approach or [the more rigorous] three-part approach, the Court finds that the EEOC 

failed to conciliate in good faith.”).

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 4 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 4 of 15
The more rigorous approach to evaluating the adequacy of the EEOC’s efforts at 

conciliation pursuant to § 2000e-5 applies a three-part inquiry.14 The Eleventh Circuit has 

concisely set out that approach as follows:

To satisfy the statutory requirement of conciliation, the EEOC 

must (1) outline to the employer the reasonable cause for its 

belief that Title VII has been violated; (2) offer an opportunity 

for voluntary compliance; and (3) respond in a reasonable and 

flexible manner to the reasonable attitudes of the employer. 

In evaluating whether the EEOC has adequately fulfilled this 

statutory requirement, the fundamental question is the 

reasonableness and responsiveness of the EEOC's conduct 

under all the circumstances.15

In regard to the separate motion for judicial notice, Federal Rule of Evidence 201 

permits a court to judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because 

it is generally known within the court’s jurisdiction or can be accurately and readily 

determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. 

III. Request for Judicial Notice

Parker Drilling has requested that the Court take judicial notice of a collection of 

EEOC press releases, articles, and judicial documents from other courts in support of its 

Motion for partial Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated in Parker Drilling’s reply 

brief, the Court will grant that request to the extent required to rule on the motion as to all 

documents except three.

16 The three excepted documents are (1) a report on EEOCinitiated litigation by law firm Seyfarth Shaw, and (2) two Bloomberg BNA articles 

regarding the EEOC.17 The Court finds that Parker Drilling has failed to demonstrate that 

14 Mach Min., 378 F.3d at 182.

15 EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal citations 

and quotation marks omitted). 

16 Docket 250 (Reply). 

17 Docket 203-15; Dockets 203-17–18.

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 5 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 5 of 15
the factual assertions set out in these three documents are not subject to reasonable 

dispute and accordingly the Court declines to take judicial notice of them. 

IV. Challenge to the Adequacy of EEOC’s Conciliation Efforts

As discussed above, although it does not adopt that standard as controlling, the 

Court evaluates the EEOC’s effort to conciliate its charge against Parker Drilling under 

the more rigorous three-part inquiry applied by several circuits—because if the 

conciliation efforts meet that standard then the Court clearly has subject matter 

jurisdiction over the EEOC’s claims in this action. 

A. EEOC’s responsibility to outline the charge to Parker

The first requirement for adequate conciliation under the three-part test is that the 

EEOC outline to the employer the reasonable cause for its belief that Title VII has been 

violated.

In this case, in a letter dated September 14, 2012, the EEOC notified Parker Drilling 

of its determinations that (1) Mr. McDowell was a “qualified individual” under the ADA 

based on his vision impairment and met all the qualifications for the position for which he 

applied; (2) that Parker Drilling did not hire Mr. McDowell because of his visual impairment

and Parker Drilling’s determination that his impairment “posed a direct threat to [Mr. 

McDowell] and other employees working on the rig floor”; and (3) that Mr. McDowell’s 

work history and demonstrated ability to work in the position offered, with or without 

reasonable accommodation, undermined Parker Drilling’s explanation for having denied 

employment to Mr. McDowell.18 Based on the foregoing, the EEOC informed Parker 

18 Docket 203-5 (Determination Letter) at 1. 

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 6 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 6 of 15
Drilling “the evidence supports that [Mr. McDowell] was denied employment in violation 

of the ADA because of his disability, and/or because [Parker Drilling] regarded [Mr. 

McDowell] as having a disability.”19

The Court finds that in sending this letter, the EEOC adequately outlined to Parker 

Drilling a reasonable cause for the EEOC’s belief that Title VII had been violated. 

B. EEOC’s responsibility to offer an opportunity for voluntary compliance

The second requirement for adequate conciliation under the more searching threepart test is that the EEOC offer a respondent an opportunity for voluntary compliance. 

The record reflects that the EEOC and Parker Drilling exchanged formal 

communications through counsel regarding conciliation between December 7, 2012 and 

April 12, 2013. In a letter dated December 7, 2012, the EEOC outlined its initial offer of 

settlement. The EEOC proposed that Parker Drilling agree to certain specified training, 

reporting, hiring policy, and employee notification requirements. On behalf of Mr. 

McDowell, the EEOC also sought $354,617.74 in estimated back pay and $150,000 in 

compensatory and punitive damages for emotional distress.20 In explaining the basis for 

the amount of back pay requested, the EEOC stated:

When [Parker Drilling] rescinded the offer of employment, [Mr. 

McDowell] was without employment for a period of time and 

subsequently obtained a position with a salary much lower 

than the $155,000 a year Tool Pusher position [Parker 

Drilling] rescinded from [Mr. McDowell]. As a result, [Mr. 

McDowell] is seeking $354.617.74 (from January 29, 2010, to 

August 18, 2012) in backpay, including interest, projected 

bonuses and a 15 percent annual cost of living raise, and a 

19 Id.

20 Docket 203-6 (Ex. F) at 1–2.

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 7 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 7 of 15
job offer from [Parker Drilling] for the position of Tool Pusher 

at a pay rate commensurate for a third year Tool Pusher.21

In a letter dated December 19, 2012, Parker Drilling responded to the EEOC. The 

response set forth Parker Drilling’s commitment to being an equal opportunity employer. 

The letter also referred to the medical evaluation of Mr. McDowell as the basis for Parker 

Drilling’s actions, and concluded as follows:

Parker Drilling remains willing to discuss and explore a 

reasonable resolution to this matter. However, the proposal 

you have submitted appears to greatly exceed everything Mr. 

McDowell could even potentially recover is he was successful 

in litigation, a truly dubious prospect considering the evidence, 

the law, and your own Commission’s guidance.22

Parker Drilling’s December 19 letter did not include a counter-offer for settlement. In its 

summary judgment briefing, Parker Drilling characterizes this letter as “in good faith 

asking for an explanation as to how the EEOC came up with its settlement demand of 

one-half a million dollars.”23 But the Court cannot find any such request in this letter. 

In a letter dated January 29, 2013, the EEOC responded to Parker Drilling’s letter, 

stating:

Your letter did not provide any indication of what your client 

considers a reasonable resolution. Accordingly, the 

Commission respectfully requests that you provide a specific 

offer as to monetary and injunctive relief that your client is 

willing to offer as a resolution. It is apparent from your 

December 19, 2012, letter that the respondent has 

reservations regarding the Commission’s proposed monetary 

relief. The Commission based the monetary relief proposal 

on the information available at that time. We would welcome 

any good faith offers your client is willing to put forward.

24

21 Id. at 2. 

22 Docket 203-7 (Ex. G) at 2.

23 Docket 202 (Motion) at 4.

24 Docket 203-8 (Ex. H) at 1

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 8 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 8 of 15
Parker Drilling responded in turn in a letter dated February 12, 2013, in which it 

stated:

As you are aware, Parker Drilling respectfully, but 

vehemently, disagrees with the EEOC’s findings in this 

matter, as well as its description of the underlying facts at 

issue.

. . . 

I am sure you can imagine my client’s surprise when the 

Commission issued its opening conciliation proposal of more 

than one-half of a million dollars in monetary relief and several 

non-monetary concessions. At that great amount of money, I 

am not optimistic the sides will be able to bridge [the] wide gap 

the Commission has created through its initial proposal. Due 

to the great disparity between the side’s beliefs in this matter, 

Parker Drilling did not accept the Commission’s first offer. 

Now, the Commission has requested Parker Drilling submit 

some proposal for resolution, which Parker Drilling submits in 

aid of resolution. Parker Drilling certainly remains willing to 

discuss a reasonable resolution to this matter. In that regard,

and to avoid continuing legal expenses, Parker Drilling is 

prepared to pay Mr. McDowell $10,500, or one month’s salary 

for the position for which he had applied.25

The EEOC replied in a letter dated March 7, 2013, which included the following:

While the Commission appreciates your expressed interest in 

reaching a reasonable resolution to the charge, Parker 

Drilling’s $10,500 offer does not provide the appropriate 

remedy that is consistent with the Respondent’s 

discriminatory practices, which resulted in substantial loss of 

income, and compensatory damages as well. In our 

continued efforts to resolve this matter, the Commission is 

willing to lower its counteroffer to $475,000, with our previous 

conciliation requirements of policy changes, training, and 

posting of notice to employees, to resolve all issues and 

provide remedy to Mr. McDowell. . . . If Parker Drilling is 

interested in conciliating the above charges it must respond 

to this proposal, in writing, by March 22, 2013. If we do not 

receive an offer which provides substantive remedy to Mr. 

McDowell, we may refer the case to our legal unit for review

of further actions to obtain appropriate relief for Mr. 

McDowell.26

25 Docket 203-9 (Ex. I) at 1. 

26 Docket 203-10 (Ex. J) at 1.

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 9 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 9 of 15
Parker Drilling’s response in a letter dated March 22, 2013, stated:

In light of the EEOC’s two proposals submitted thus far, it 

appears clear to me there is likely to be too great a gap 

between each side’s respective positions to reach a

settlement agreement and Parker Drilling is willing to address 

these issues to a federal court. However, Parker Drilling 

remains willing to work with the EEOC in an effort to resolve 

this matter, provided you understand that the company will not 

pay several hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle this 

matter.

Parker Drilling remains staunchly opposed to the 

Commission’s findings in this matter. 

. . . 

That said, Parker Drilling remains interested in conciliating the 

above-referenced matter and, by this letter, is offering to pay 

[Mr. McDowell] $12,500. By this offer, Parker Drilling does not 

admit to any liability in this matter and still denies that there is 

any legal liability on its part.27

In a letter dated April 12, 2013, the EEOC informed Parker Drilling that it had 

“determined that efforts to conciliate the above referenced charge as required by the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended, have been unsuccessful” 

and that “further conciliation efforts would be futile or non-productive.”28

In its partial summary judgment motion, Parker Drilling’s central challenge to the 

EEOC’s failure to provide an opportunity for voluntary compliance is that the “EEOC’s 

failure to provide any basis, let alone sufficient basis for its half a million dollar settlement 

demands, does not meet its statutory duty to conciliate in good faith.”29 

27 Docket 203-11 (Ex. K) at 1–2.

28 Docket 203-12 (Ex. L) at 1.

29 Docket 202 (Motion) at 12. 

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 10 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 10 of 15
Parker Drilling cites to La Rana Hawaii for support. In La Rana Hawaii, an alleged 

EEOC failure to conciliate was asserted by employers in a motion to dismiss the EEOC’s 

claims. The district court found that “the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith when it 

failed to provide either Defendant with any information with which they could evaluate the 

EEOC’s claims.”30 The court elaborated as follows:

Despite Defendants' repeated requests, the EEOC did not 

furnish information regarding the class of unnamed aggrieved 

individuals, the allegedly unlawful acts, or any other fact that 

would put Defendants on notice of the class or its claims. The 

EEOC's obstinate refusal to offer any information, including 

the results of its investigation, does not demonstrate a 

willingness to work toward settlement, because a fundamental 

element of working toward settlement is providing a 

reasonable amount of information to make settlement a 

possibility.31

Parker Drilling asserts that “[t]he need for employers to know the basis of a 

complainant’s alleged damages or the settlement demand asserted by the EEOC is 

obvious. Without such information, there is no way for the parties to conciliate in a 

meaningful manner. Any defendant in any litigation needs to know the extent of the 

plaintiff’s damages before an intelligent settlement assessment can be made.”32 Parker 

Drilling also asserts that “the EEOC also cannot generically respond to an employer’s 

request for a basis for the EEOC’s calculations by stating that the demand is comprised 

of ‘back pay, compensatory damages and front pay’ without setting out a basis for its 

calculations.”33

30 La Rana Hawaii, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 1045.

31 Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

32 Docket 202 (Motion) at 14–15.

33 Id. at 16 (citing EEOC v. Swissport Fueling, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1043 (D. Ariz. 2013)).

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 11 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 11 of 15
Several facts distinguish the circumstances of this case from the district court 

cases on which Parker Drilling relies. First, in La Rana Hawaii and Parker Drilling’s other 

cited case, EEOC v. Bloomberg,

34 the information deficit that resulted in the respondents 

being unable to evaluate the EEOC’s claims stemmed from a lack of information about 

the size of the class the EEOC was litigating on behalf of and the claims made by persons 

in that class. By contrast, this case involves a single, identified individual with a 

specifically articulated claim. And unlike in Parker Drilling’s cited case EEOC v. Swissport

Fueling, the EEOC set out in its December 19, 2012 conciliation letter the factors it 

included in its back pay calculation. In light of these facts, Parker Drilling had sufficient 

information to be able to evaluate the reasonableness of the EEOC’s settlement proposal. 

Indeed, Parker Drilling’s statement that “the proposal you have submitted appears to 

greatly exceed everything Mr. McDowell could even potentially recover if he was 

successful in litigation” indicates that Parker Drilling in fact did make some evaluation of 

Mr. McDowell’s claim. In summary, the Court finds that the EEOC provided sufficient 

information for Parker Drilling to evaluate the EEOC’s charge and respond.35 Based on 

the foregoing, the Court finds that the EEOC offered Parker Drilling an adequate 

opportunity for voluntary compliance through the conciliation process.

//

34 751 F. Supp. 2d 628, 641 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). 

35 Parker Drilling raises the EEOC’s request for $150,000 in compensatory and punitive damages 

as an additional complication to evaluating the merits of the EEOC’s settlement offer. Docket 202 

(Motion) at 4. The EEOC did not provide a basis for these damages to the same level of detail 

as it did for its equitable claim. However, the Court views the EEOC’s request for compensatory 

and punitive damages as secondary to its core discrimination claim and the associated equitable 

remedies. And plaintiffs in civil litigation routinely request damages for emotional distress and 

punitive damages without articulating precise bases for the amount of damages sought. 

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 12 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 12 of 15
C. EEOC’s obligation to respond reasonably and flexibly to the reasonable 

attitudes of Parker Drilling

The third requirement of adequate conciliation under the more searching threepart test is that the EEOC respond reasonably and flexibly to the reasonable attitudes of 

Parker Drilling. 

At its heart, Parker Drilling’s challenge to the EEOC’s conciliation efforts focuses 

on whether the EEOC’s offers of conciliation were made in good faith. Parker Drilling 

asserts that “[t]he EEOC’s ‘take it or leave it’ stance to conciliation does not meet the 

statutory obligations to proceed in good faith.”36

From the record before the Court, it is apparent that during the conciliation process, 

the EEOC and Parker Drilling viewed the merits of Mr. McDowell’s claim and the 

appropriate equitable and legal remedies very differently. The EEOC evaluated Mr. 

McDowell’s claim as meritorious and deserving of significant remedy, while Parker Drilling 

viewed the claim as non-meritorious and warranting a remedy only to defray greater 

potential litigation costs. The EEOC’s obligation to seek conciliation in good faith does 

not require it to convince a respondent of the merits of its position nor to compromise 

claims it considers meritorious for the sake of avoiding litigation. And while Parker Drilling 

repeatedly emphasizes in its briefing that it made requests for a more detailed explanation 

of the basis for the EEOC’s settlement demands, the Court does not find such requests 

reflected in Parker Drilling’s conciliation correspondence. As discussed above, the EEOC 

adequately explained its position and exchanged multiple correspondences with Parker 

Drilling during the conciliation process. When Parker Drilling clearly communicated in its 

36 Docket 202 (Motion) at 17. 

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 13 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 13 of 15
March 22, 2013 letter that in its view “there is likely to be too great a gap between each 

side’s respective positions to reach a settlement agreement,” the EEOC concluded that 

further attempts at conciliation were unlikely to be fruitful. The Court finds that the EEOC’s 

responses to Parker Drilling’s conciliation correspondence and its eventual conclusion 

that conciliation had failed were reasonable under these circumstances. 

Parker Drilling’s briefing also emphasizes the EEOC’s September 18, 2013 press 

release related to this suit and the EEOC’s failure to “reconvene the conciliation 

discussions” after this suit was filed. It suggests that these actions by the EEOC 

demonstrate that the agency never had any intent to reach an agreement with Parker 

Drilling during conciliation.37 The EEOC’s post-suit press release does not support an 

inference that its earlier conciliation efforts were made in bad faith, and post-suit efforts 

to settle this case have no bearing on whether the EEOC’s pre-suit conciliation efforts 

were adequate.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the record and applying the more searching approach to 

conciliation review that has been adopted by several circuits, the Court concludes that 

the EEOC’s approach to conciliation was reasonable and responsive in light of all the 

circumstances.38 Accordingly, the Court concludes that, to the extent that adequate 

conciliation is a jurisdictional pre-condition to this suit, the EEOC met that pre-condition 

37 Docket 202 (Motion) at 5–7. 

38 The Court emphasizes that it is not determining whether this more searching test is the proper 

means of evaluating conciliation pursuant to § 2000e-5, or even whether any such evaluation is 

an appropriate subject for judicial review. Rather, it finds that even if this more rigorous test is 

applied, the EEOC’s conciliation efforts in this case were adequate.

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 14 of 15

 

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 14 of 15
before filing suit in this case and the Court has jurisdiction. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED 

that:

1. Parker Drilling’s Request for Judicial Notice at Docket 204 is GRANTED except 

as to the documents at Docket 203-15, 203-17, and 203-18; and

2. Parker Drilling’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at Docket 202 is DENIED. 

DATED this 20th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3:13-cv-00181-SLG, EEOC, et al. v. Parker Drilling Co. 

Order Re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Page 15 of 15

Case 3:13-cv-00181-SLG Document 322 Filed 03/20/15 Page 15 of 15