An opinion of the Mach Mining Supreme Court, which rejects the EEOC`s argument, would give even stronger reasons for employers` demands for disposition based on ineffective conciliation efforts. It goes without saying that a contrary finding will once again allow employers to accept the injustices that occur at one time or another in the EEOC conciliation process. Not surprisingly, the EEOC has repeatedly taken the position that federal courts do not have the authority to assess the EEOC`s conciliation efforts. In 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took up this argument despite a consistent opposing federal power and ruled that the EEOC`s conciliation efforts were not subject to judicial review. EEOC v. Mach Mining, LLC, 738 F.3d 117 (7 cir. 2013). However, conciliation sometimes fails “due to mistrust between the parties,” EEOC president Janet Dhillon said at a Commission hearing on August 18. Therefore, she said, the Agency is proposing a regulation that “will create more accountability and transparency in the conciliation process” and “fill the communication gap that [it believes] has affected the success of [the agency`s] conciliation program.” The Agency would achieve this in part by providing more information to employers. .