Opinion ID: 799452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The EEOC's and CRST's Conciliation

Text: On August 6 and August 7, 2007, CRST counsel Thomas D. Wolle contacted EEOC Investigator Pamela Bloomer to confirm CRST's desire to conciliate with the EEOC. On August 8, 2007, Bloomer left Wolle a voicemail message asking Wolle to send CRST's conciliation proposal by August 16, 2007. Wolle responded that he preferred that the EEOC initiate the proposal process. On August 17, 2007, Wolle and Bloomer held a telephone conversation during which Bloomer told Wolle that the EEOC would require CRST to send a letter to past and present employees to help identify class members who might be part of a settlement. On August 24, 2007, Wolle telephoned Bloomer to inform her that he had spoken with Starke's counsel and that, from that conversation, CRST had determined that conciliation appeared futile. Wolle promised to send an email confirming CRST's position regarding the futility of conciliation. Bloomer responded that the next step after conciliation would be [the] EEOC's internal decision whether to litigate on behalf of [Starke] and the class or provide [Starke] with a [right-to-sue] letter. The parties could reach no agreement on conciliation and, on August 28, 2007, the EEOC notified CRST that the EEOC had determined that its efforts to conciliate [the Charge] as required by [Title VII] have been unsuccessful. The EEOC added that because further conciliation efforts would be futile or non-productive, it would not make further efforts to conciliate [the Charge] and was forwarding the case to [its] legal unit for possible litigation.