Month: April 2025

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik, and Gregory Tsonis

Duane Morris Takeaways: The EEOC’s fiscal year (“FY 2025”) spans from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. Through the midway point, EEOC has filed 23 enforcement lawsuits, an uptick when compared to the 14 lawsuits filed in FY 2024, but still down from the 29 filed in the first six months of FY 2023. Traditionally, the second half of the EEOC’s fiscal year – and particularly in the final months of August and September – are when the majority of filings occur. However, an early analysis of the types of lawsuits filed, and the locations where they are filed, is informative for employers in terms of what to expect during the fiscal year-end lawsuit filing rush in September.

Cases Filed By EEOC District Offices

In addition to tracking the total number of filings, we closely monitor which of the EEOC’s 15 district offices are most active in terms of filing new cases over the course of the fiscal year. Some districts tend to be more aggressive than others, and some focus on different case filing priorities. The following chart shows the number of lawsuit filings by EEOC district office.

The most noticeable trend of the first six months of FY 2025 is that the Philadelphia District Office has already filed five lawsuits. Indianapolis has four lawsuit filings, and Atlanta and Houston have three each. Many of the district offices have yet to file a lawsuit at all in FY 2025. But for employers in the Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Atlanta, and Houston metropolitan areas, these early tea leaves suggest that a higher likelihood of pending charges may turn into federal lawsuits by September.

Analysis Of The Types Of Lawsuits Filed In First Half Of FY 2025

We also analyzed the types of lawsuits the EEOC filed throughout the first six months, in terms of the statutes and theories of discrimination alleged, in order to determine how the EEOC is shifting its strategic priorities. The chart below shows the EEOC filings by allegation type.

In the first half of FY 2025, 64% or 14 of the 22 filings contained Title VII claims. The percentage of each type of filing has remained fairly consistent over the past several years, until the first half of FY 2024, when nearly every filing contained Title VII claims, with 12 of the 14, or 87% alleging these violations. This year’s filings are more aligned with years prior to FY 2024. In FY 2023, Title VII claims comprised of 59% of all filings, 69% in FY 2022, and 62% in 2021. ADA cases were alleged in 10 or 45% of the lawsuits filed, a substantial increase from FY 2024, where ADA claims were only 21% of the cases in the first half of the year. There were also two ADEA lawsuits filed.

The graph set out below shows the number of lawsuits filed according to the statute under which they were filed (Title VII, Americans With Disabilities Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Equal Pay Act, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act).

The industries impacted by EEOC-initiated litigation have also remained consistent in FY 2025. The chart below details that hospitality, healthcare, and retail employers have maintained their lead as corporate defendants in the last 18 months of EEOC-initiated litigation.

Notable 2025 Lawsuit Filings

Sexual Harassment

In EEOC v. Teamlyders LLC (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2025), the EEOC filed an action against six entities operating Taco Bell restaurants in Michigan, alleging that a senior area manager subjected female employees, including multiple teenage employees, to sexual harassment. The EEOC contended that the harassment included inappropriate sexual comments, such as asking if underage employees were sexually active, asking an employee if she would give him “sugar” when she turned 18, unwanted and inappropriate touching of females under age 18, and asking an assistant manager for videos or images of her having sex with her boyfriend. The EEOC also asserted that the defendants failed to take effective action against the manager, despite receiving multiple complaints from different employees, supervisors, and managers, and that one female employee was terminated immediately after making a complaint about the manager’s conduct.

Sex / Disability Discrimination

In EEOC v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Case No. 24-CV-3597 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2024), the EEOC brought suit alleging that the defendant, which owns and operates fitness facilities and gyms nationwide, illegally discriminated against a woman who suffers from endometriosis on the basis of disability and sex when it failed to hire her as a front desk associate at its sports club in Washington because of her “monthly cycle,” failed to provide her with a potential need for a reasonable accommodation, and failed to accommodate her disability during the job application process. The EEOC asserted that the applicant, who previously worked in similar positions for other gyms, asked for her second-round interview to be delayed by a few days because she experiences painful menstrual cramps and was anticipating being in that situation imminently. The EEOC alleged that the defendant rejected the applicant, and that the manager with whom she had her initial interview told her in a text message that she was passed over for the position because there was a concern that she would be absent in the future “due to [her] monthly cycle.” The EEOC also alleged Equinox subsequently hired a male applicant with no prior experience working in gyms for the front desk associate position.

Disability Discrimination

In EEOC v. Alto Experience, Inc., Case No. 24-CV-2208 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2024), the EEOC filed an action alleging that the defendant, a ride hailing company, violated the ADA when it denied reasonable accommodations and employment to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals who applied to work as personal drivers, despite the availability of technological accommodations, and, in some instances, despite previous experience as drivers for other ride-hailing companies. The EEOC also alleged that some qualified deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals who were denied accommodations or employment as personal drivers were steered into in less-desirable car washing positions.

These filings illustrate that the EEOC will likely continue to prioritize sex, sex harassment, and disability discrimination claims in the second half of FY 2025.

Release Of Enforcement Statistics

On January 17, 2025, the EEOC published its Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Performance Report (“FY 2024 APR”), summarizing the Commission’s recent year of enforcement activity and recovery on behalf of U.S. workers.  As the Annual Performance Report highlights, 2024 was a successful year for the EEOC, and the Commission recovered nearly $700 million for 21,000 individuals (a 5% increase over FY 2023).  Significantly, according to the Commission it successfully resolved 132 merits lawsuits (a 33% increase over FY 2023) and achieved a successful outcome in 128 (or 97%) of all suit resolutions.  See FY 2024 APR at p. 12.  Given the Commission’s spike in enforcement activity, and its odds of prevailing, the Annual Performance Report reminds employers of the risks associated with an EEOC lawsuit and the need maintain and administer EEOC-compliant employment policies.

FY 2024 Highlights

In the EEOC’s 78-page Annual Performance Report, the Commission discusses, at length, its annual performance results and the significant victories it achieved in FY 2024. Specifically, the Report highlights that the Commission secured nearly $700 million for U.S. workers, the highest monetary amount in recent history, including over $469 million for private sector and state/local government workers through mediation, conciliation, and settlements, as well as more than $190 million for federal workers.  The EEOC also notes that it filed 111 new lawsuits in 2024 on behalf of alleged victims of workplace discrimination, several of which were brought under the newly enacted and untested Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”).  FY 2024 APR at p. 2

The Commission also reported that it received 88,531 new charges of discrimination this past fiscal year, representing a 9% increase over FY 2023.  The EEOC experienced increased demand from the public, handling over 553,000 calls through its agency contact center, and receiving over 90,000 emails, which represented a growing demand for the Commission’s services. Id. at p. 3. The Commission also made it clear that it would continue to focus on systemic enforcement, and in 2024 alone, it resolved 16 systemic cases and obtained 23.9 million on behalf of 4,074 victims of systemic discrimination, and other significant equitable relief. Id.

Takeaways For Employers

By many accounts, FY 2024 was a record-breaking year for the EEOC. As demonstrated in the report, the Commission has pursued an increasingly aggressive and ambitious litigation strategy to achieve its regulatory goals.  The data confirms that the EEOC had a great deal of success in obtaining financially significant monetary awards.

We anticipate that the EEOC will continue to aggressively pursue its strategic priority areas in FY 2025.  There is no reason to believe that the annual “September surge” is not coming, in what could be another precedent-setting year.  However, with a new presidential administration, there are apt to be changes in the coming year.  We will continue to monitor EEOC litigation activity on a daily basis, and look forward to providing our blog readers with up-to-date analysis on the latest developments.

Finally, as previously talked about on the blog here – we are thrilled to announce that will be providing a webinar on May 5, 2025, to further analyze the above data.  Employers will gain insight on what they should be doing to ready themselves for the remainder of FY 2025.  Save the date and stay tuned!

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Anna Sheridan, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 22, 2025, in EEOC v. Waste Pro Fla., Inc., No. 23-CV-1132, (M.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2025), Judge Wendy Berger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a joint motion for approval of a consent decree between the EEOC and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. The Court determined that the parties failed to comply with the Middle District of Florida’s local rules and to provide specificities necessary for approval of the consent decree.  For those who think that EEOC consent decrees simply get rubber-stamped, this order demonstrates that that this is not the case. This ruling illustrates the importance of litigants closely adhering to a courts’ local rules and always providing a legal and factual basis for the court to grant their motions, even when those motions are unopposed.

Case Background

On September 26, 2023, the EEOC, on behalf of charging party Fednol Pierre, filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. (“Waste Pro”) regarding allegations systemic racial harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (ECF 1.) The EEOC alleged that Waste Pro perpetuated a work environment that subjected Mr. Pierre to racial slurs and derogatory racial comments and retaliated against Mr. Pierre when he complained of harassment.  Id. ¶¶ 36, 57.

On October 15, 2024, the parties jointly moved for approval of a consent decree. (ECF 65.) The motion spans two pages and includes details about the procedural background of the case, the claims made in the complaint, the settlement process, the decree’s compliance with the federal rules, and the decree’s public benefit. Id. Among other provisions, the agreement provided for a $1.4 million cash award to Mr. Pierre and other Black and Haitian employees and required Waste Pro to employ an officer to ensure compliance with civil rights laws. (ECF 65-1 ¶¶ 17–44.).

The Court’s Order

The Court denied the parties’ joint motion to approve the consent decree and found the motion failed on two independent grounds, including: (1) the motion did not provide a basis for approval and (2) the motion did not comply with Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(a).  (ECF 70 at 1.)

First, the Court determined that “the filing fails to provide this Court with any legal or factual basis” for granting the motion. Id. Courts do not rubber stamp consent decrees. See In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig. MDL 2406, 85 F.4th 1070, 1094 (11th Cir. 2023). Instead, courts must independently determine whether the agreements are “fair, adequate, and reasonable” by considering various factors. Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.3d 982, 987 (11th Cir. 1984). In this case, the Court concluded that the parties had not provided it with sufficient information to undertake this analysis, so the Court could not approve the consent decree. (ECF 70 at 1.) As the parties here learned, courts generally will decline to enforce a consent decree that simply restates existing legal obligations without measurable terms.

Second, the Court held that “the filing fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a).” Id. The rule requires joint motions to include the word “unopposed” in the title. L.R. 3.01(a). It also requires a motion to include “a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a legal memorandum supporting the request.” Id. The parties titled the motion “Joint Motion for Approval of Consent Decree” and did not include a supporting legal memorandum; therefore, the Court determined that they failed to adhere to the requirements of the rule.

In sum, the Court concluded that it could not grant the parties’ motion without a firm factual or legal basis and that it would not excuse the parties’ violation of the local rules. (ECF 1 at 1.) Instead, it denied the motion and gave the EEOC one week to show cause why the lawsuit should not be dismissed with prejudice. Id.  

Implications For Employers

The Court’s ruling in Waste Pro should serve as a stark warning to all litigants that they should always review a court’s local rules and be in the habit of giving the court a reason to rule in their favor, even when the relief they seek is unopposed.

This case demonstrates the serious consequences that can result from a lack of attention to detail. Here, the Court rejected the parties’ attempt to circumvent the Court’s independent duty to determine the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the agreement.

When settling with the EEOC or any regulatory body, vague promises to “do better” will not suffice. If employers want their settlements approved, they cannot just recycle boilerplate language.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 15, 2025, in EEOC v. Elevation Labs, LLC, No. 23-CV-00318, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73702 (D. Idaho Apr. 15, 2025), Judge Lynn Winnmill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho denied Elevation Lab’s untimely motion to strike punitive damages for the EEOC’s failure to comply with Idaho state law. The EEOC lawsuit asserts allegations of retaliation after a former employee complained of discrimination.

This ruling illustrates the significance of asserting timely defenses and that federal courts analyze procedural motions, including motions to strike, with strict adherence to the operative federal rule of civil procedure. In this case, the Court relied on Defendant’s failure to demonstrate striking the EEOC’s prayer for punitive damages was warranted under procedural rules.

Case Background

On July 7, 2023, the EEOC, on behalf of charging party Rachel Johnson, filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Elevation Labs, LLC (“Elevation”) regarding allegations of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC alleged Elevation retaliated against Ms. Johnson after she complained of discrimination.  Id. at *2.  The EEOC’s Complaint included allegations for punitive damages against Elevation within its prayer of relief. Id.

On September 18, 2023, Elevation answered the Complaint. Id. After the parties litigated for over a year-and-a-half and engaged in discovery, Elevation moved to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) on February 26, 2025. Id. Elevation argued the EEOC did not comply with Idaho Code § 6-1604(2), which requires plaintiffs to “obtain court permission before including a request for punitive damages in the complaint,” before it filed suit. Id. 

The Court’s Order

The Court denied Elevation’s motion to strike and found the motion failed on two independent grounds, including: (1) the motion was untimely and (2) the motion lacked merit.  Id. at *1.

First, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a party may file a motion to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Id. at *3. In addition, a party must move to strike “within 21 days after being served with the pleading.” Id. Elevation however did not move to strike until almost 17 months after service of the Complaint, and therefore, the Court denied the motion as untimely. Id.

Second, the Court held that, even if it considered the merits of the motion to strike, Elevation’s motion still failed. Id. In liberally applying Rule 12(f), the Court determined “whether the prayer for punitive damages should be stricken because the EEOC did not comply with the gatekeeping mechanism in [the] Idaho Code § 6-1604(2) – the motion lacks merit.” Id at *4. The Court opined that the EEOC asserted a federal claim in federal court, “[w]hich of course means that federal law governs the substance and procedure of its claim.” Id. Elevation did not dispute this rule but nevertheless contended federal law “is silent with respect to any pleading standard or procedural prerequisite,” so the Idaho Code must fill “the silence.” Id.

The Court disagreed. The Court instead held the only prerequisite to requesting punitive damages in Title VII cases requires the EEOC to plead “sufficient factual matter to permit a reasonable inference that defendant engaged in intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference to plaintiff’s federally protected rights.” Id. at *5. The Court further held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3) fills the silence and enables litigants to seek “different types of relief” in their pleadings permitting plaintiffs to seek punitive damages without first seeking court permission. Id.

In sum, the Court determined that state procedural law on the ability to request punitive damages had no place in federal court proceedings involving federal law claims. See id. Instead, federal substantive and procedural law exclusively govern such claims. See id. at *6. Therefore, the Court denied Elevation’s motion to strike the EEOC’s prayer of relief for punitive damages finding Elevation’s reliance on Idaho state law was misplaced and its motion was untimely. Id.

Implications For Employers

The Court’s ruling in Elevation Labs signals the EEOC’s continued litigation enforcement efforts in federal courts for retaliation claims and its pursuit of all available damages.

This case demonstrates the pitfalls of moving under inapplicable state court rules in federal court. Here, the Court rejected Elevation’s attempt to inject state court procedural requirements and the Court disagreed that state statutory requirements impact federal claims under Title VII.

Employers, when embroiled in EEOC litigation, must analyze their defenses swiftly to assert a timely defense and to ensure that defense is applicable.  Otherwise, Employers may find themselves moving too late and, without defenses, creating exposure in already difficult litigation.