Editorial: Bureaucratic bullying

When a federal agency gets slapped down by activist government disciples such as Elena Kagen, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, you can bet it wandered pretty far afield.

And so it was last week with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which suffered an 8-0 defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court in its effort to avoid forking over millions of dollars in attorney fees to a company that had the gumption to stand up to bureaucratic bullying.

The 9-year-old dispute involves an EEOC complaint that an Iowa trucking company tolerated sexual harassment and fostered a hostile work environment for about 270 female employees. But the agency’s case fell apart in court after it was determined the EEOC had, among other transgressions, failed to properly investigate the allegations.

The company was awarded $4.7 million in legal fees, but an appeals court threw out the monetary award. On Thursday, however, the high court unanimously held that the company was eligible to recover its costs under federal law.

Of particular note in this case, a federal panel during the appeals process characterized the agency’s strategy as “sue first, ask questions later.” This is no accident. The EEOC’s modus operandi includes intimidating private-sector interests into settlements, regardless of an allegation’s merits.

And many companies, especially smaller businesses, take the pragmatic road, opting to pay a ransom rather than to take on expensive, drawn-out litigation and the risk of a significant judgment.

But it appears the EEOC picked the wrong patsy when it went after CRST Van Expedited Inc.

In 2014, the office of Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, released a report which found that the EEOC routinely abused its power with few consequences.

“By law, the agency is supposed to conciliate disputes first and sue as a last resort,” the Wall Street Journal noted, “but in many cases the agency’s lawyers don’t bother with the former.”

Perhaps having to cough up attorney fees to the Iowa trucking company will lead EEOC agents to more prudently exercise their authority. On the other hand, it’s only taxpayer money. This is an agency that deserves additional congressional scrutiny.