Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01469/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01469-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:623 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

TIMELESS INVESTMENTS, INC. dba )

EZ TRIP GOLDEN STATE )

CONVENIENCE AND AUTO/TRUCK )

PLAZA, and DOES 1-5, inclusive, )

)

Defendant. )

)

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-1469 AWI SMS

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL

BRIEFING TO BE FILED BY

4:00 P.M. JULY 13, 2010

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which

is set for hearing on July 26, 2010. In Defendant’s motion, Defendant argues in part that 1

Plaintiff failed to engage in good faith conciliation efforts as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). 

See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 31- at p.11. Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the case and

award attorney’s fees for Plaintiff’s alleged failure to properly conciliate. See id. 

Prior to filing suit under the ADEA, the EEOC must attempt conciliation with the

employer. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); EEOC v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 897 F.2d 1499,

1505 n.5 (9th Cir. 1990); see also EEOC v. Bruno's Restaurant, 13 F.3d 285, 288 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff also has a motion for summary judgment set for hearing on July 26, 2010. However, this order

1

concerns an argument made in Defendant’s motion.

Case 1:08-cv-01469-AWI -SMS Document 43 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Some courts have approved the dismissal of the case and the award of attorney’s fees against the

EEOC for a failure to engage in a good faith conciliation. E.g. EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert

Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 2003). However, it has also been held that courts have the

authority to stay judicial proceedings in order for the EEOC to make further conciliation efforts. 

E.g. Brennan v. Ace Hardware Corp., 495 F.2d 368, 376 (8th Cir. 1974). The Court believes that

additional briefing on the issue of whether the Court should stay the proceedings for further

conciliation efforts (if the Court later finds that the EEOC did not conciliate in good faith)2

would be beneficial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. On or by 4:00 p.m. July 13, 2010, the parties shall each file a brief on the issue of

whether the Court should stay the proceedings for further conciliation efforts if the Court

later finds that the EEOC did not conciliate in good faith; and

2. All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 3, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

The Court emphasizes that it has not determined that the EEOC breached the duty to conduct a good faith

2

conciliation. The Court merely wishes to hear the parties’ respective positions on the possibility of a stay for further

conciliation proceedings.

2

Case 1:08-cv-01469-AWI -SMS Document 43 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 2