The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in two cases today:

Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, No. 13-1019: Before suing an employer for discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) must try to remedy unlawful workplace practices through informal methods of conciliation. Here, the EEOC sued petitioner Mach Mining in federal court alleging sex discrimination in hiring, and Mach Mining asserted that the EEOC had failed to conciliate in good faith prior to filing suit. At summary judgment, the EEOC argued that its conciliation efforts are not subject to judicial review. The District Court rejected that argument, but the Seventh Circuit reversed. Today, the Court vacated and remanded, holding that a court may review whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory obligation to attempt conciliation before filing suit, but the scope of that review is narrow, reflecting the abundant discretion the law gives the EEOC to decide the kind and extent of discussions appropriate in a given case.

The Court's decision is available here.

Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, No. 13-1499: Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 7C(1) provides that judicial candidates “shall not personally solicit campaign funds . . . but may establish committees of responsible persons” to raise money for election campaigns. Petitioner Lanell Williams-Yulee (“Yulee”), when running for a county court seat, drafted, signed, mailed and posted online a letter requesting campaign funds. After she lost the election to the incumbent judge, the Florida State Bar filed a complaint against her for violating Canon 7C(1). The referee rejected Yulee’s First Amendment defense, as did the Florida Supreme Court in adopting the referee’s recommendations for disciplinary sanctions. The Court today affirmed, holding that the First Amendment permits Canon 7C(1)’s restriction on speech.

The Court's decision is available here.

On Monday, April 27, the Court granted review in the following cases:

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339: Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute.

Green v. Donahoe, 14-613: Under federal employment discrimination law, does the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begin to run when an employee resigns, as five circuits have held, or at the time of an employer's last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation, as three other circuits have held?