and the Division, it would be illogical to limit their ability to seek classwide relief to something narrower than the. abilities of priyate litigants. . Our determination that the EEOC and the Division satisfy their presuit conciliation requirements if they attempt to conciliate on behalf of a class of individuals prior to bringing suit is also consistent with the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the EEOC’s enforcement powers. The Court has held that. “[e]very aspect of Title VII’s conciliation’ provision smacks of flexibility.” Id. at 1654. Indeed, the EEOC “may seek specific relief for a group of aggrie (6th Cir.1984) (“The record establishes that the EEOC sought to conciliate the class based claim with Keco.”); EEOC v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 652 F.2d 1176, 1185-86 (4th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). . We further note that the conciliation
recognizing similar analysis applies to discrimination and retaliation claims holding that discriminatory employment practices are cognizable under title ix holding that any irregularities must indicate discriminatory hiring practices holding that in establishing intentional discrimination in employment proving a defendants efforts to cover up the discriminatory purpose is part of and often considerably assists the greater enterprise of proving wrongful intent holding that eeocs conciliation efforts regarding discriminatory practices at one branch office were sufficient to cover claims of similar discrimination at another branch