Category: EEOC Litigation

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 3, 2025, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. A&A Appliance, Inc. d/b/a Appliance Factory Outlet, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-02456 (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2025), Judge Daniel D. Domenico of the District Court for the District of Colorado granted Defendant A&A Appliance, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment as to the EEOC’s claims. The Court held that the EEOC failed to make a prima facie case of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it had not shown Defendant was aware of a disability or request for accommodation from the charging party. This ruling illustrates the steps an employee must take to adequately demonstrate a disability and request an accommodation and the situations where an employer may be justified in terminating an employee who fails to return from taking leave under the Family Medical Leave Act.

Case Background

Defendant A&A Appliance, Inc. (“Defendant”) employed Karima Javanzad (“Claimant”) from February 2019 to June 2020. (ECF 172 at 1) Shortly before her termination, in April, the Claimant requested a retroactive 12-week leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), citing various ailments for her and her son, including COVID-19. Id. at 1-2. Defendant granted the Claimant’s FMLA request from March 12 to June 7. Id. at 2. During her leave, the Claimant contacted Defendant on several occasions to inquire regarding the length of her leave and whether she could extend it. Id. Defendant consistently communicated with the Claimant and informed her that she could extend her leave “if the triggering condition for FMLA was extended by [her] medical provider.” Id. The Claimant did not return to work on June 8, she did not respond to Defendant’s requests to discuss her position, and she did not provide nor receive any confirmation that she ever contracted COVID-19 nor had any disability requiring an accommodation until after the end of her leave. Id. at 6-7. The last doctor’s note the Claimant received in May stated that she did not have any work restrictions. Id. at 6. On June 9, Defendant informed the Claimant that her FMLA had been exhausted and requested to further discuss her position, but Claimant never responded. Id. at 7. As such, Defendant terminated her employment on June 10.  Id. at 7.

In response to her termination, the Claimant filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Id. at 2. When conciliation efforts between the parties failed, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Claimant against Defendant on the same grounds. Id. Following discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. Id.

The Court’s Order

The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on both the ADA discrimination and the retaliation counts. Id. at 4. On each count, the Court reasoned that the EEOC must show that the Claimant was either disabled or that she was engaged in a protected activity for which she was discriminated or retaliated against. See id. at 4-10. The Court concluded that the EEOC could prove neither element.

First, the Court noted that the Claimant provided three possible disabling illnesses, COVID-19, vocal cord paralysis, and gastritis. Id. at 7. However, she never received a formal diagnosis for any of them until after she was terminated. Id. Moreover, while the Claimant asserted that she was unable to return to work, her May doctor’s note contradicted her statements by indicating that she “did not have any [work] restrictions” and that she could return to work without issue. Id. at 6-7. The Court concluded that these “inconsistent representations regarding [Claimant’s] ability to return to work” coupled with the lack of clarity regarding her illness meant that “Defendant cannot be found to have been on notice of a disability that required accommodation under the ADA.” Id. at 7 (emphasis added).

Second, in the alternative, the Court held that, even if the EEOC had presented evidence that the Claimant suffered from COVID-19, the EEOC’s claims still failed. Id. The Court reasoned that, to recover for a claim for failure to accommodate or for retaliation for requesting an accommodation, an employee must “make an adequate request, making clear that she wants assistance for her disability.” Id. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Court, the Claimant’s requests for additional information regarding her remaining leave did not amount to an accommodation request. Id. In fact,“Ms. Javanzad never made an explicit request for an accommodation from Defendant — even for an additional leave of absence — until after her FMLA leave expired.” Id. And when she did request additional leave, the Claimant did not provide any details about the leave she was requesting. Id. The Court concluded that these facts provided an independent basis for entering summary judgment against the EEOC. Id. at 9.

Implications For Employers

The Court’s decision in A&A Appliance, Inc. serves as a reminder to both employees and employers. Although employers must engage in the interactive process for both ADA and FMLA purposes to reasonably accommodate employees’ disabilities, the onus rests with the employee to demonstrate a disability and to request an accommodation, effectively providing notice to the employer of the claimed disability. If the employee fails to satisfy either of these prerequisites, an employer is not on notice of any disability and may be justified in terminating the employee’s employment.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Adam D. Brown, and Gregory S. Slotnick

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 25, 2025, in United States EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp. (In Re AAM Holding Corp.), 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 21629 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a decision by the Southern District of New York and held the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) retains authority to investigate an EEOC charge even after the EEOC issues the charging party a right-to-sue letter and the charging party subsequently files a lawsuit in court.  This ruling significantly expands the scope of the EEOC’s investigative authority in the Second Circuit as it joins the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in allowing pending EEOC investigations to proceed following the agency’s issuance of right-to-sue letters to a charging party who thereafter files suit.  The decision is directly at odds with the Fifth Circuit’s holding in EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 103 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 1997), that the EEOC’s investigative authority ceases upon the charging party’s filing suit pursuant to a right-to-sue letter.  The Second Circuit’s opinion follows the more recent trend of courts siding with the EEOC on its assertion of expansive investigative authority and allowing the agency to continue investigating charges despite the charging party’s separate private lawsuit.  With the decision, the split in authority now heavily favors the EEOC’s expanded authority, and employers should understand that ongoing EEOC investigations may continue in full force despite the agency’s issuing a right-to-sue letter.  Finally, the opinion confirmed that EEOC subpoenas must be construed generously and may properly request extremely broad categories of class-wide documents and information if the EEOC finds it relevant and in the public’s interest to seek same.  

Case Background

In March 2022, Eunice Raquel Flores Thomas (“Thomas”), a former dancer who worked at two Manhattan adult entertainment clubs (FlashDancers Midtown and FlashDancers Downtown (together, “the Clubs”)), filed a class-based charge with the EEOC alleging widespread sexual harassment and hostile work environment at both club locations.  AAM Holding Corp., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 21629, at *3.  Thomas claimed she and other women were forced to change clothes in an open back room without doors that was video-monitored, and were pressured to have sex with high-paying repeat customers in champagne rooms, fearing adverse employment actions should they refuse.  Id. at *3-4. 

Following the EEOC’s initial notification to the Clubs that Thomas filed a charge, the EEOC requested information such as “the clubs’ policies regarding relationships between customers and employees, any records of sexual harassment complaints, and pedigree information for their employees, including each employee’s name, age, sex, race, position, dates of employment, and contact information.”  Id. at *4.  The Clubs objected to the EEOC’s requests as irrelevant and unduly burdensome to produce, and the EEOC thereafter issued two subpoenas demanding the employee pedigree information, which ultimately led to the EEOC petitioning the District Court for enforcement.  Id. at *4-5.  The District Court granted the EEOC’s petition and ordered the Clubs to produce the information, explaining that the relevance requirement is a “low bar” and that courts give the term a “generous construction,” allowing access to “virtually any material that might cast light on the allegations against the employer.”  Id. at *5 (internal citation omitted).  The Clubs eventually filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit and moved to stay the enforcement order first in the District Court and then in the Second Circuit, both of which motions were denied.  Id. at *5-6.

Meanwhile, in July 2024, while the Clubs’ appeal before the Second Circuit was pending, the EEOC issued Thomas a right-to-sue letter, on the basis of which Thomas filed, in September 2024, a putative class action complaint in the District Court.  Id. at *6.  The Clubs then argued to the Second Circuit that the EEOC had been divested of its investigative authority (including its ability to issue subpoenas) once Thomas received her right-to-sue letter and filed suit.  Id.  The Clubs also reiterated their position that the underlying subpoenas’ demand for pedigree information for all club employees (not just Thomas) was overbroad and unduly burdensome.  Id.

The Second Circuit’s Decision

The Second Circuit began its opinion by providing background about the investigative process under Title VII.  It explained that the EEOC bears primary responsibility for enforcing Title VII under a multistep enforcement procedure that involves the filing of a timely charge, an investigation by the EEOC during the pendency of the charge, and, where appropriate, dismissal of the charge and issuance of a right-to-sue letter authorizing the charging party to pursue litigation.  Id. at *6-8.

The Second Circuit also addressed the Clubs’ argument that the EEOC’s investigative authority stops once it issues a right-to-sue letter and the party files suit.  Specifically, it addressed the Clubs’ reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 103 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 1997), which held that the initiation of a private suit by an aggrieved party marks the end of the investigation stage and thus terminates the EEOC’s investigative authority.  Id. at *8-9. 

Disagreeing with the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Hearst, the Second Circuit found no support in the text or structure of Title VII, instead citing Title VII’s broad grant of authority to the EEOC, which provides that the agency “‘shall at all reasonable times have access to . . . evidence . . . that relates to unlawful employment practices . . . and is relevant to the charge under investigation.’”  Id. at *9 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(a)) (emphasis added).  The Second Circuit determined that Title VII did not place any “strict temporal limit” on the EEOC’s authority to issue and enforce subpoenas and obtain evidence through the enforcement process, and that, in fact, the requirement that the EEOC complete its investigation within 120 days applies only “so far as practicable,” which the Court held does not establish “a hard stop.”  Id. at *10.

Moreover, the Second Circuit observed that the Supreme Court has held that the EEOC retains independent administrative “responsibility of investigating claims of employment discrimination” and therefore retains the right to file its own civil lawsuit even after the 180-day window, which does not end its responsibility or ability to investigate a charge.  Id. at *11 (citing Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 368 (1977)).  

The Second Circuit further reasoned that a central part of the EEOC’s “broad public interest and role” in fighting employment discrimination is pursuing the public interest by enforcing the law even when that interest is distinct from or exceeds the private interest of the aggrieved charging party.  Id. at *11.  It noted the possibility that the EEOC could issue a right-to-sue letter only to have the charging party file suit and settle for nominal damages, a scenario in which, the opinion states, the agency would still be free to continue investigating ongoing unlawful discrimination that may be remedied by unique EEOC mechanisms like conciliation or public litigation.  Id. at *12.  Those mechanisms also include the EEOC’s ability to initiate class-wide enforcement actions without certification of a class representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as well as its ability to pursue injunctive relief.  Id. at *12-13.

Ultimately, the Second Circuit opined on these bases that the EEOC retains its authority to investigate, including issuing and enforcing administrative subpoenas, after it issues a right-to-sue letter and the charging party files a lawsuit.  Id. at *13-14.  The Second Circuit supported its holding by noting that, “[w]hen the EEOC determines that public resources should be committed to investigating and enforcing a charge, the statutory text unambiguously authorizes it to proceed,” citing to similar holdings (without dissent) in both the Ninth Circuit (EEOC v. Fed. Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842, 854 (9th Cir. 2009) and the Seventh Circuit (EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 867 F.3d 843, 850-51 (7th Cir. 2017)).  Id. at *13-14 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The opinion also held the EEOC’s subpoena for pedigree information was not overbroad or unduly burdensome.  Id. at *14.  The Second Circuit determined the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that: (i) the materials were relevant to Thomas’s claims of widespread sexual harassment at the Clubs; and (ii) the Clubs failed to show that producing responsive documents and information would be unduly burdensome, rejecting the Clubs’ assertion, without factual detail, that the production would take approximately 300 hours of work.  Id. at *15-19.

Implications For Employers

The Second Circuit’s decision means the EEOC’s investigative authority does not end when a charging party requests and receives a right-to-sue letter and thereafter files a suit.  Instead, the EEOC may, in its discretion, determine that the public’s interest either diverges from or exceeds the interests of the private charging party and may continue its ongoing investigation by issuing class-wide records and information requests. 

Companies must be keenly aware of the EEOC’s broad, ongoing investigatory powers in dealing with the charging party and the EEOC throughout the time after a charge is filed.  Employers should also be aware that courts are reluctant to deny the EEOC’s subpoena requests when the agency makes a showing of relevance, which is generously interpreted by courts in the EEOC’s favor.  While situations may arise in which the agency’s requests are truly overbroad or unduly burdensome in scope, businesses should assume they will have an uphill battle objecting to or greatly limiting any such requests, even after the charging party files a separate private lawsuit.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christian J. Palacios, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On June 05, 2025, in EEOC et al., v. Sis-Bro, Inc., Case No. 3:24-CV-00968 (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2025), Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted a transgender worker’s petition to intervene in an EEOC discrimination case against her former employer, after the Commission moved to permanently dismiss the lawsuit to comply with a January 2025 Executive Order issued by President Trump. The Court opined that while it “recognize[d] that it may not dictate what cases the EEOC pursues” given that this was “the exclusive purview of the Executive Branch,” the worker also deserved a fair opportunity to litigate her claims.  Id. at 3.  This decision is noteworthy for its unique procedural posture.  During the first few months of the Trump Administration, the EEOC has realigned its enforcement priorities consistent with a flurry of executive orders, but, as this decision illustrates, the Commission’s pending enforcement actions may not be so easily dismissed to the extent a private litigant’s rights are implicated by the dismissal.

Case Background

In March 2024, the EEOC brought an employment discrimination case on behalf of charging party Rafael Figueroa a/k/a Natasha Figueroa, alleging her employer, Sis-Bro Inc., a pig farm, discriminated against her by creating a hostile work environment and constructively discharged her based on her sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII.  Id. at 1.  After surviving a motion to dismiss, the Court allowed Figueroa to intervene and assert state law tort and discrimination claims, all of which were either voluntarily dismissed, or dismissed by the Court without prejudice, shortly thereafter.  While discovery was ongoing, Sis-Bro filed a partial motion for summary judgment on the issue of back pay, front pay, and reinstatement, asserting Figueroa was not entitled to such relief given she was not legally eligible to work in the U.S. Id. at 2.  

While the partial motion for summary judgement was pending, the executive administration changed, and on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”  After the Executive Order was issued, the EEOC moved to dismiss the action with prejudice, on the basis that continuing to litigate the matter would violate the Trump administration’s new Executive Order.  Id.  

As the EEOC’s motion to dismiss was pending, Figueroa sought to intervene a second time, filing yet another intervenor complaint asserting violations of Title VII (similar claims to that of the Commission), in addition to §1981 claims based on race, color, ethnicity, and national origin.  Id. at 7.  Figueroa did not request back pay, front pay, or reinstatement in her second intervenor complaint, but instead sought non-pecuniary and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.  Id. at 3.  In response, Sis-Bro moved to dismiss Figueroa’s motion to intervene, amongst other related motions, to dispose of the action entirely.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court began its ruling by observing, in dicta, that Figueroa had an interest in her claims that Sis-Bro violated the law, and while her claims may fail for other reasons, “the EEOC’s change of heart will not be one of those reasons.”  Id. at 4.  The Court then granted the EEOC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, to ensure Figueroa’s rights were not impaired. Id. at 4-5. 

The Court next addressed Sis-Bro’s arguments and rejected the contention that Figueroa’s motion to intervene was untimely, given Sis-Bro was unable to demonstrate her second intervenor action would have any prejudicial effect.  Id. at 6.  Although the Court did not allow Figueroa to re-plead her §1981 claims (because they were dismissed in the previous intervenor action), Figueroa was allowed to plead a new Title VII claim, given it was like the one that the EEOC abandoned, despite surviving a motion to dismiss.  Id. at 7-8.  The Court reasoned that although Figueroa did not assert these claims in her original intervenor complaint, “she placed her confidence in the good faith of the EEOC to pursue her rights along with its other statutory claims” and she sought to timely intervene once it became clear that the EEOC “changed its mind.”  Id. at 9.  Accordingly, the Court found Sis-Bro should be ready to litigate the matter.

Implications For Employers

As the above case illustrates, despite the fact that there has been a “changing of the guard” and the EEOC under President Trump has drastically different enforcement priorities than the Biden Administration, the Commission’s pending enforcement actions will not be so easily dismissed by courts, to the extent pending enforcement actions conflict with newly promulgated executive orders, provided that the allegedly aggrieved private litigant is ready and able to pursue the action without the assistance of the Commission.

Given that the EEOC under President Trump has indicated it will be withdrawing from many areas championed during the Biden Administration (e.g., disparate impact cases and abortion-related Pregnant Workers Fairness Act accommodation actions), private enforcement actions may increase within the coming months to fill in the enforcement vacuum left open by the Commission.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways: Given the importance of compliance with workplace anti-discrimination laws for our clients, we are pleased to present the third annual edition of the Duane Morris EEOC Litigation Review – 2025. The EEOC Litigation Review – 2025 analyzes the EEOC’s enforcement lawsuit filings in 2024 and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting EEOC litigation for 2025. We hope that employers will benefit from this deep dive into how the EEOC’s priorities reveal themselves through litigation. Click here to download a copy of the EEOC Litigation Review – 2025 eBook.

The Review explains the impact of the EEOC’s six enforcement priorities as outlined in its Strategic Enforcement Plan on employers’ business planning and how the direction of the Commission’s Plan should influence key employer decisions. In its annual performance report for FY 2024, the EEOC touted a record $700 million in monetary recoveries for workers through litigation and administrative avenues. Moving into FY 2025 with a $33.22 million budget increase for the EEOC and significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a corporate imperative.

The Review also contains a compilation of significant rulings decided in 2024 that impacted EEOC-initiated litigation and a list of the most significant settlements in EEOC cases in 2024.

We hope readers will enjoy this new publication. We will continue to update blog readers on any important EEOC developments, and look forward to sharing further thoughts and analysis in 2024!

Mark your calendars for our biannual webinar analyzing the latest EEOC developments on Monday, May 5, 2025 from 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Central. Reserve your virtual seat for the program here. Join Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, Alex Karasik and Greg Tsonis for a live panel discussion analyzing the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the EEOC, including its new strategic priorities and the array of EEOC lawsuits filed in the first six months of fiscal year 2025.

Our panel will empower corporate counsel, human resource professionals and business leaders with key insights into the EEOC’s latest enforcement initiatives and strategies designed to minimize the risk of drawing the agency’s scrutiny in what projects to be a transformative year for the Commission.

Stay tuned for key EEOC-related analysis on the Class Action Weekly Wire Podcast.

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.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Anna Sheridan, George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Battleground Restaurants, Inc. et al., 1:24-CV-792, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32071 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 2025), the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss an EEOC lawsuit alleging discriminatory hiring practices against men at a chain of sports bars.  The EEOC’s complaint asserts sex discrimination in hiring for server, bartender, and host positions, and for failures to preserve employment records in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This case signals a new wave of anti-discrimination enforcement actions against companies that prioritize hiring practices that may exclude male applicants.  The Commission’s litigation efforts are in full swing, and companies must review their hiring practices to ensure all applicants are weighed neutrally during the application process.

Complaint Allegations

The EEOC’s complaint alleges that between December 1, 2019, and February 18, 2022, Kickback Jack’s restaurants located throughout North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee discriminated against males by failing to hire men for front of house, non-managerial positions.  Id. at *1.  Kickback Jack’s is owned and operated by Battleground Restaurants, Inc. and Battleground Restaurant Group, Inc. (“BRGI”) (collectively “Defendants”).  Id. 

Kickback Jack’s employs “servers, hosts, and bartenders in non-managerial front-of-house positions,” all of which require no “special skills or qualifications.”  Id. at *2. Kickback Jack’s advertisements state that applicants need only “[b]ring [their] great attitude to work and [Kickback Jack’s] will train you.”  Id. at *2. 

The underlying charge was filed on July 31, 2020, when a female server, Melody Roe, filed an EEOC charge of discrimination against Kickback Jack’s.  Id.  Included in Roe’s charge of discrimination was statements that Kickback Jack’s “has a policy and/or practice of only hiring females for front of house positions and not into management.”  Id. at *3.  The EEOC’s investigation into Roe’s charge of discrimination found that Battleground Restaurants, Inc. “maintained a policy or practice . . . of failing or refusing to hire males for non-managerial front of house positions because of their sex.”  Id.

The Commission’s investigation further revealed that of the 2,100 non-managerial front-of-house employees employed between December 1, 2019, and February 18, 2022, “approximately 3% were male” and some Kickback Jack’s locations “did not employ male servers at all.”  Id. at *4.

As a result of these newly uncovered hiring practices, the EEOC filed a complaint asserting that “a predominantly female front-of-house workforce cannot be justified by any legitimate business purposes” and that Defendants’ hiring practices “were and are intentional and willful.”  Id.  The Complaint also alleged that Defendants failed to make and preserve records relevant to their employment practices, and specifically failed to retain applications for employment.  Id. at *5.

Defendants moved to dismiss the EEOC’s complaint, dismiss or strike BRGI, and requested the Court certify the case for interlocutory appeal.  Id. at *1.

District Court’s Ruling

The Court denied the Defendants’ motion in all aspects on the basis that the EEOC complied with procedural and administrative requirements, plausibly alleged a pattern or practice of disparate sex discrimination, and that the EEOC could properly include BRGI as a defendant.  Id.

Defendants argued the EEOC failed to provide them with adequate notice of its claims on “behalf of male applicants and the Title VII records violations.”  Id. at *5.  Defendants did not dispute that it received notice of Roe’s charge of discrimination within 10 days (as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b)).  Rather, the Defendants argued the charge of discrimination did not “give them notice of an EEOC investigation into discrimination against males in hiring.”  Id. at *7. 

The EEOC countered that the investigation into discrimination against males was implicit in Roe’s allegations that the restaurant had “a policy and/or practice of only hiring females” for front of house positions.  Id.The Court agreed that the “alleged discrimination against males for front of house positions appears on the face of the charge of discrimination,” Defendants did not allege that they were not on notice of the charge of discrimination, and therefore, the EEOC complied with its administrative and procedural requirements under the statute.  Id. at *8

The Court also denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the EEOC’s preservation of records claim because no 10-day notice requirement exists under the statutory provisions.  Id. at *8-9.  The Court further disagreed with Defendants that the EEOC’s claims should be limited to 180 days before Defendants received notice of the charge of discrimination because “the complaint [did] not contain the facts necessary to assess whether the EEOC’s claims exceed Title VII’s statute of limitations period.”  Id. at *10-11. 

On Defendants’ argument to dismiss or strike BRGI, the Court opined that the Commission plausibly alleged BRGI is “essentially, Kickback Jack’s operator.”  Id. at *12.  The Court held the EEOC can sue BRGI “despite not naming [BRGI] directly as a party in the charge of discrimination or communicating with it based on both the joint enterprise test and substantial identity exception.”  Id. at *15. 

On the EEOC’s allegations of Title VII sex discrimination in hiring, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss because the EEOC “plausibly alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination by using statistics” which demonstrated of the 2,100 non-managerial front-of-house employees approximately only 3% were male.  Id.  at *18.  And in some instances, locations “did not employ any male servers at all.”  Id.  The EEOC also satisfied its pleading requirements under Title VII as it alleged Defendants discriminated “against male applicants –– a protected class — ” and alleged that “male applicants qualified” for the front-of-house roles.”  Id. *17-18.  Based on these findings, the Court reasoned “this type of ‘gross disparity’ plausibly demonstrates an inference of discrimination against males who applied to work as servers.”  Id. at *18. Therefore, the Court found that the EEOC has met its burden of plausibly alleging the elements of its claim sufficiently to survive a motion to dismiss.

The Court also denied Defendants’ request for certification stating it did “not find any esoteric issues meriting an interlocutory appeal.” Id. at *2. 

Implications For Employers

Employers’ hiring practices remain a target for EEOC initiated litigation.  This case is but one example of the EEOC bringing a lawsuit after identifying a pattern of potentially discriminatory practices first alleged in a charge.  While uncommon, the EEOC does regularly bring these “pattern-or-practice” lawsuits under Section 706 or Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it has a case that draws significant public interest or could make an industry-wide impact.  

This is far from the first case of male gender discrimination in the restaurant industry. The popular restaurant chain Hooters has settled several similar lawsuits, one in 1997 for $3.75 million, and one in 2009 for an undisclosed sum.  See Latuga v. Hooters, Inc., 1:93-CV-7709 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 1997); see also Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc., No. 09-CV-00002 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2009).  Lawry’s restaurants were also hit with an EEOC pattern or practice lawsuit in 2006 alleging that Lawry’s practice of only hiring females for its server positions constituted gender discrimination.  See EEOC v. Lawry’s Restaurants, Inc., No. CV 06-01963 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2006). 

The recent case against Battleground shows that the EEOC continues to closely scrutinize hiring practices which select individuals based on a protected characteristic, including gender. Employers must also monitor and audit their hiring practice outcomes to ensure statistical models don’t demonstrate discrimination otherwise an EEOC action may be on the horizon.