Category: EEOC Litigation

By Gerald J. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Derek Franklin

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On September 29, 2023, the EEOC issued a new Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the “Guidance”).  The Guidance provides insights into how employers can handle evolving workplace realities and developing trends with harassment claims. Notably, the Guidance addresses how digital technology and social media postings can contribute to a hostile work environment.  It also addresses the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, where Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).  The Guidance is open to public comment through November 1, 2023; if issued in final form, it will mark the first update to the EEOC’s official harassment guidance in nearly 25 years.

For employers, the Guidance is a “must read” in terms of preventing future workplace harassment claims.

Workplace Harassment In The Digital Landscape

The Guidance spotlights how social media postings and other online content can contribute to hostile work environments, even if it occurs outside of the workplace and is not work-related.  For instance, the Guidance cites the following examples of conduct occurring in an employee’s “virtual work environment” that employers can be liable for: “[a] sexist comments made during a video meeting, [b] racist imagery that is visible in an employee’s workspace while the employee participates in a video meeting, or [c] sexual comments made during a video meeting about a bed being near an employee in the video image.”

In addition to discussing conduct occurring in a “virtual work environment,” the Guidance also clarifies that conduct occurring in non-work-related contexts can contribute to a hostile work environment if it impacts the workplace.  This includes electronic communications through phones, computers, and social media.  For example, the Guidance cautions that, if an employee’s private social media posting subjects a co-worker to racial epithets, and other co-workers discuss the posting at work, then that posting “can contribute to a racially hostile work environment.”

Harassment Based On Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity

Another notable aspect of the Guidance is that it incorporates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1747 (2020), which held that Title VII’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

While Bostock concerned an allegedly discriminatory employment discharge and did not involve harassment, the EEOC states in the Guidance that the Supreme Court’s reasoning “logically extends to claims of harassment.”  The Guidance therefore dictates that “sex-based harassment includes harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, including how that identity is expressed.”

The Guidance lists several examples of conduct that can constitute this type of harassment, including: “[a] epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; [b] physical assault; [c] harassment because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s gender; [d] intentional and repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity (misgendering); or [e] the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.”

The EEOC also includes a hypothetical fact pattern in the Guidance depicting harassment based on gender identity.  In that hypothetical, supervisors and co-workers of a fast food employee who identifies as female commonly referred to the employee using her prior male name and pronouns, asked questions about her sexual orientation and anatomy, and asserted that she was not female.  In addition, customers “intentionally misgendered” the employee and “made threatening statements to her,” which the employer only responded to by reassigning the employee to a workstation where customers could not see her.  These facts, according to the EEOC, established harassment based on gender identity and, therefore, sex-based discrimination under Title VII.

Takeaways For Employers

The Guidance is a “must read” resource for employers to navigate potential harassment concerns.  It provides employers with an opportunity to revise their policies and protocols to better reflect the current legal landscape and the evolution of digital technology.  The Guidance also highlights the EEOC’s emphasis on enforcing Title VII’s prohibition of harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Employers should review their policies and practices to ensure they adequately protect against, and provide avenues to report, potential harassment that takes place virtually.  Likewise, employers may wish to consider incorporating examples of harassment given by the EEOC when implementing harassment prevention measures.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Derek Franklin, and Emilee N. Crowther

Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Army Sustainment, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-234 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 26, 2023), Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Court dismissed the EEOC’s “failure-to-accommodate” and “screening-out” claims against Defendant, in addition to holding that only four of the EEOC’s seventeen claimants could support the EEOC’s disability bias claim.  The Court also found that the Defendant employer’s policy barring employees from taking various prescribed medications was not, by itself, an adverse employment action.  For employers facing EEOC-initiated lawsuits involving ADA claims alleging discrimination and failure-to-accommodate, this decision is instructive in terms of what evidence courts are apt to consider in determining whether an employee suffered an adverse employment action, as well as what is required to trigger an employer’s duty to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Case Background

Defendant Army Sustainment LLC a/k/a Army Fleet Support (“AFS”) is a helicopter maintenance contractor which, from 2003 to 2018, employed aircraft mechanicals, technicians, and other aviation specialists at Fort Novosel (previously known as Fort Rucker).  Id. at 1.  AFS implemented a drug testing policy (the “Policy”) in 2012 requiring employees in “safety-sensitive positions” to submit to drug testing for opioids, amphetamines, and benzodiazepines.  Id.  Individuals who were legally prescribed these medications were cleared to work so long as they agreed not to take their medication within 6-to-8 hours before their shift.  Id. at 1-2.

In 2016, AFS eliminated the “6-to-8-hour rule,” and instead required employees to undergo a medical evaluation “to determine whether an employee’s prescription medication was appropriate for use during work hours.”  Id. at 2.  As part of the medical evaluation, the employee’s original prescribing doctor was asked “whether the employee was stable on their safety-sensitive medication or whether alternative medications were available that were as effective.”  Id.  If no alternative medications were available, and the employee was determined unable to safely work while taking the medication, the employee was deemed “disabled.”  Id.

In 2016, two AFS employees affected by the Policy filed discrimination charges with the EEOC.  The Commission found reasonable cause that AFS violated the ADA by “not allowing a class of individuals ‘to continue to work or return to work while taking their disability-related medications.’”  Id. at 2-3.  Further, the EEOC held that AFS’ Policy itself had “the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability” and violated the ADA.  Id. at 3.

The EEOC filed suit against AFS on behalf of 17 AFS employees who suffered from different disabilities, but were legally prescribed medications and required to undergo medical evaluations to return to work.  Id.  The EEOC brought four claims against AFS, including: (1) Discrimination on the Basis of Disability; (2) Failure to Accommodate; (3) Impermissible Qualification Standard; and (4) Interference.  Id.

The Court’s Decision

Timeliness Of The EEOC’s Enforcement Action

In Alabama, an employee bringing claims under Section 706 of Title VII “must file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the date of the alleged discrimination.”  Id. at 4.  Any claims filed with the EEOC after the 180-day period are time-barred.  Id.  AFS asserted that eight of the 17 claimants were time-barred, as their claims arose more than 180 days before the “representative charge” was filed with the EEOC.  Id.

The Court found that Section 706(e)(1) precluded the EEOC “from pursuing claims that arose outside the charging period, even when those untimely claims are related to otherwise timely claims.”  Id. at 5.  While the parties disagreed as to what date the “representative charge” was filed with the EEOC, the Court held that any claims that arose prior to May 23, 2016 (180 days before one of the representative charges were filed), were time-barred.  Id. at 6.  As such, the Court dismissed seven of the claimants from the EEOC’s lawsuit.  Id.

Whether Prohibiting Use Of A Medication Can Constitute An Adverse Employment Action

The Court’s first step in analyzing the EEOC’s disability discrimination claim was determining whether the claimants with timely claims experienced adverse employment actions.  The Court rejected the EEOC’s argument that requiring the claimants to stop using their prescription medications was an adverse action, and held that merely being required to stop using certain prescription medications, without more, did not have a tangible adverse effect on employment of the claimants.  Id. at 23. In making this determination, the Court explained that “[w]hether the employer’s conduct constitutes an actionable adverse employment action under the ADA is determined by whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would view the employment action in question as adverse.” Id. at 23.

The Court noted that while AFS required the claimants to sign a document acknowledging that their medications were “inappropriate for use in a safety sensitive work environment” and could result in discipline for employees if caught taking the medications, the Court held that “neither signing a form nor fear of termination are sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action.”  Id. at 24.

The Court’s Rejection Of Unpaid Leave As A Reasonable Accommodation

The Court also considered whether AFS, as a means of providing a disability accommodation, could place employees on unpaid leave until they either received medical clearance to return to work or agreed to stop taking their medications.  Id. at 25.

The Court rejected the notion that temporary leave is an accommodation rather than an adverse action. It reasoned that AFS “unilaterally forced the claimants on unpaid leave and did so without an accommodation request by the claimants or without any showing that the claimants could not actually perform their job duties either with or without their prescription medications.”  Id. at 27.  Thus, the Court denied summary judgment as to the claims of four AFS employees who alleged they suffered an adverse employment action after being placed on unpaid leave, and granted summary judgment in favor of AFS as to the remaining employees on this claim.  Id. at 28.

Summary Judgment Universally Granted On Claims of Failure-To-Accommodate And Screening Out Employees Under The ADA

The Court further held that AFS was entitled to summary judgment against all claimants based on their failure to establish a prima facie case for the EEOC’s failure-to-accommodate claim.  Id. at 37.  For example, the Court found the EEOC did not show that two of the claimants made accommodation requests to AFS or how any such requests would accommodate the limitations presented by their disabilities.  Id. at 36.

The Court’s penultimate holding concerned the EEOC’s claim that AFS’s drug policy constituted an impermissible qualification standard in violation of Sections 12112(b)(3) and 12112(b)(6) of the ADA by screening out qualified individuals with a disability.  Id. 41-42.  The Court granted summary judgment as to all claimants on the screening-out claim based on the EEOC’s failure to support its claim with statistical evidence or by showing that any of the claimants were actually terminated and “screened out” from their jobs.  Id.

Finally, the Court refused to consider or grant summary judgment on the EEOC’s interference claim because AFS failed to acknowledge it as a standalone cause of action and thus did not formally move for summary judgment on that claim.  Id. at 44-45.

Implications For Employers

Employers confronted with EEOC-initiated litigation involving restrictions on employee conduct outside the workplace should take note that the Court relied heavily on its assessment of whether “a reasonable person” in the claimants’ position would view the restriction in question as adverse.  Further, from a practical standpoint, the Court’s refusal to grant summary judgment on the EEOC’s failure-to-accommodate claims illustrates the potential risk of trying to use unpaid leave as an attempted means of reasonably accommodating an employee’s disability.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, George J. Schaller, and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways:  In FY 2023, the EEOC’s litigation enforcement activity showed that any previous slowdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic is well in the rearview mirror, as the total number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC increased from 97 in 2020 to a whopping total of 144 in FY 2023. Per tradition, September 2023 was a busy month for EEOC-Initiated litigation, as this month marks the end of the EEOC’s fiscal year. This year, 67 lawsuits were filed September, up from the 39 filed in September of FY 2022.

Overall, the FY 2023 lawsuit filing data confirms that EEOC litigation is back in full throttle, with no signs of slowing down. Employers should take heed. Amplifying that activism, the Commission issued a press release at the end of the fiscal year touting its increased enforcement litigation activity, a somewhat unprecedented media statement that the EEOC has never issued in previous years.

Lawsuit Filings Based On 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 actively filing new cases over the year and throughout September. 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 offices.

In FY 2023, Philadelphia District Office had by far the most lawsuit filings with 19, followed by Indianapolis and Chicago with 13 filings, and New York and Los Angeles each with 10 filings. Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, and Memphis had 9 each,  Houston had 8, Miami, Birmingham, and St. Louis had 7 each, and San Francisco had 5 filings.

The most noticeable trend of FY 2023 is the filing deluge in Philadelphia (19 lawsuits), compared to FY 2022 where Philadelphia District Office filed 7 lawsuits. Similarly, Indianapolis ramped up its filings compared to the 7 filings from FY 2022.  Like FY 2022, Chicago remained steady near the top of the list again with 13 filings.  Los Angeles, had a slight increase, based on the 8 filings it had in FY 2022.  Going another direction, Miami filings slightly fell compared to its 8 filings in FY 2022.   Finally, both New York and Charlotte increased their filings from FY 2022, with New York substantially increasing from 7, and Charlotte moderately increasing from 7 filings.

The balance across various District Offices throughout the country confirms that the EEOC’s aggressiveness is in peak form, both at the national and regional level.

Lawsuit Filings Based On Type Of Discrimination

We also analyzed the types of lawsuits the EEOC filed, in terms of the statutes and theories of discrimination alleged, in order to determine how the EEOC is shifting its strategic priorities.

When considered on a percentage basis, the distribution of cases filed by statute remained roughly consistent compared to FY 2023 and FY 2022. Title VII cases once again made up the majority of cases filed, making up 68% of all filings (down from the 69% filings in FY 2022, and significantly above 61% in FY 2021). ADA cases also made up a significant percentage of the EEOC’s September filings, totaling 34%, in line with 29.7% in FY 2022, although down from the 37% in FY 2021. There were also 12 ADEA cases filed in FY 2023, after 7 age discrimination cases filed in FY 2022.

The graphs below show 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) and, for Title VII cases, the theory of discrimination alleged.

Lawsuits Filings Based On Industry

The graphs below show the number of lawsuits filed by industry.  Three industries were the primary targets of lawsuit filings in FY 2023:  Restaurants with 28 filings, Retail with 24 filings, and Healthcare with 24 filings.  Not far off those industries are Manufacturing with 15 filings; Construction with 7 filings; Automotive, Security, and Transportation with 6 filings each; and Technology with 5 filings.

Hospitality and Healthcare employers should be keenly aware of the EEOC’s enforcement of alleged discriminatory practices in these sectors.  But in reality, employers in nearly any industry are vulnerable to EEOC-initiated litigation., as detailed by the below graph.

Looking Ahead To Fiscal Year 2024

Moving into FY 2024, the EEOC’s budget includes a $26.069 million increase from 2023, and focuses on six key areas including advancing racial justice and combatting systemic discrimination on all protected bases; protecting pay equity; supporting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA); addressing the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions and preventing unlawful retaliation.

The EEOC also announced goals for its own Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accesibility (DEIA) program where it seeks to achieve four goals, including workplace diversity, employee equity, inclusive practices, and accessibility. Additionally, the EEOC continues to polish its FY 2021 software initiatives addressing artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other emerging technologies in continued efforts to provide guidance.  Finally, the joint anti-retaliation initiative among the EEOC, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the National Labor Relations Board will continue to address retaliation in American workplaces.

Key Employer Takeaways

In sum, FY 2023 was a year of new leadership and structural changes at the EEOC.  With a significantly increased proposed budget, it is more crucial than ever for employers pay close attentions in regards to the EEOC’s strategic priorities and enforcement agendas.  We anticipate these figures will grow by next year’s report, so it is more crucial than ever for employers to comply with discrimination laws.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Gregory Tsonis, and Brittany Wunderlich

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 21, 2023, Judge Barbara Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the EEOC’s motion for reconsideration, reversing its decision granting summary judgment to defendant Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington, Inc.’s (“Telecare”) in a disability discrimination case entitled EEOC v. Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington, Case No. 2:21-CV-1339 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2023).  Despite giving the EEOC multiple opportunities to submit evidence rebutting Telecare’s argument that the claimant was not qualified for the position to which he applied, and the EEOC’s failure to do so prior to its motion for reconsideration, the Court ultimately found from the EEOC’s belated evidence that a disputed material fact existed that must be resolved by a jury.  The ruling demonstrates the difficulty in achieving summary judgment in an discrimination case, as well as the reluctance of courts to bar discrimination claims entirely. For employers handling EEOC litigation, this ruling is instructive, as successful motions for reconsideration are rare, and reversals of summary judgment even rarer.

The court noted that when ruling on Telecare’s motion for summary judgment, it gave the EEOC multiple opportunities to submit evidence rebutting Telecare’s argument that the claimant was not qualified for the position in which he applied. The court further chastised the EEOC for submitting such evidence for the first time in its motion for reconsideration, calling the EEOC’s failure “particularly egregious.”  Despite the EEOC submitting such evidence for the first time in its motion for reconsideration, the district court ultimately reinstated the claimant’s claim after finding that an issue of material disputed fact existed. 

Case Background

In 2019, claimant Jason Hautala applied for a position as a registered nurse at a Telecare facility that assisted the mentally ill. While Telecare extended an offer of employment to the claimant, the offer was conditioned on the requirement that Hautala pass a physical examination to determine his fitness for the position. Telecare ultimately rescinded its offer because the claimant had a permanent leg injury, which made him unable to perform the basic functions of a registered nurse.

The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Hautala under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claiming that Telecare discriminated against him because of his disability. Telecare moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Hautala was not a “qualified individual” for the position under the ADA based on comments he made that reflected a negative attitude towards the mentally ill. Telecare alleged Hautala made statements including “in my youth, I used to enjoy a crazy person takedown, but as I get older, I enjoy these things less and less” and “fighting off meth heads isn’t as much fun in my 50s as it was in my 30s.”  Id. at 3. In support of its motion, Telecare submitted evidence that compassion toward patients with mental illness was an essential job function, and that Telecare would not hire someone who referred to patients as “crazy” or “meth heads.” The EEOC, in its opposition brief, failed to address Telecare’s argument or offer any contrary evidence.

The Court gave the EEOC a second chance to present evidence rebutting Telecare’s argument, requesting supplemental briefing on Telecare’s argument that Hautala was not a “qualified individual” for the position.  Despite the second opportunity to rebut Telecare’s position, the EEOC offered no contrary evidence and argued only that the comments, “as after-acquired evidence, could not be considered as a post hoc justification” for Telecare’s failure to hire Hautala.  Id. at 4.

Accordingly, the Court granted Telecare’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the EEOC failed to allege facts sufficient to support its prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA. In particular, the Court found that the claimant was not a qualified individual for the nursing position he applied for given Telecare’s undisputed evidence that Hautala had made the “troubling” and “inappropriate” comments, that compassion for patients suffering from mental illness was a necessary qualification for the position, and that the comments “conclusively demonstrated a lack of such compassion.”  Id.

The EEOC’s Motion For Reconsideration

The EEOC subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling in Telecare’s favor.  In doing so, the EEOC for the first time provided evidence that Telecare was aware of Hautala’s views towards the mentally ill, and argued that a material issue of fact required reinstating Hautala’s ADA claims.

The EEOC contended that it was entitled to reconsideration because subjective criteria (i.e., whether the claimant possessed the requisite compassion for the job) could not be considered as part of its prima facie case.  In rejecting this argument, the Court found the McDonnel Douglas burden-shifting framework inapplicable because Telecare admitted it did not hire Hautala based upon his disability, nor was the subjective criteria at issue “hotly contested” like the criteria in the EEOC’s cited precedent.

However, the Court found the EEOC’s second argument for reconsideration more convincing.  The EEOC argued that there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether Telecare knew of the claimant’s view on mentally ill patients during the application process, thereby contradicting Telecare’s argument that Hautera’s comments were disqualifying for the position.  The EEOC submitted as evidence an email from Telecare’s employees following Hautera’s interview in which they acknowledged Hautera’s comments, but nonetheless “advanced Hautala in the application process.”  Id. at 9.  As a result, in order to “avoid the potential for manifest error” and “in the interests of justice,” the Court concluded that summary judgement on the issue of whether Hautala was a qualified individual was not appropriate and that “[d]enying Claimant Hautala a chance to have his substantive disability discrimination claims heard based on the EEOC’s failure to timely present the issue is a potential injustice that is easily avoided.”  Id.   The Court, however, made clear that it was “not absolving” the EEOC “of its obligation to prove that Hautala was a qualified individual with a disability,” only that a factual dispute exists as to whether Telecare “would actually have considered the comments disqualifying.”  Id. at 10.

Though the Court ultimately reinstated the EEOC’s claim, Judge Rothstein chastised the EEOC for not citing this evidence in its summary judgment briefing, noting that the EEOC’s failure to cite to such evidence was “particularly egregious” given that the Court gave the EEOC a second chance to do so.  Noting that the parties filed over 1,000 pages of exhibits in support for their motions, the Court chastised the EEOC for failing to cite the evidence in its summary judgment briefs and noted that “[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs’ or on the record.”  Id. at 9.

Implications For Employers

This decision demonstrates the reluctance of courts to bar discrimination claims asserted by the EEOC even after severe and “egregious” missteps in litigation.  This latitude afforded to the EEOC, coupled with the resources available to the government in EEOC-initiated actions, requires close coordination with experienced counsel to defeat discrimination lawsuits at the pleading stage.  Employers faced with such claims should work closely with their counsel to ensure a comprehensive litigation strategy that maximizes the potential for defeating claims before the necessity of going to trial.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 22, 2023, the EEOC announced the approval its Strategic Plan (“SP”) for Fiscal Years 2022-2026.  The Strategic Plan can be accessed here.  The SP furthers the EEOC’s mission of preventing and remedying unlawful employment discrimination and advancing equal employment opportunity for all.  The SP focuses on: (1) Enforcement; (2) Education and Outreach; and (3) Organizational Excellence. The SP also provides performance measures for each strategic goal.  For corporate counsel involved in employment-related compliance and EEOC litigation, the new SP is required reading.

The EEOC’s Strategic Priorities

1. Enforcement

The EEOC continues to promote equitable employment initiatives through its enforcement authority.  The SP highlights the EEOC’s primary mission of preventing unlawful employment discrimination through its administrative and litigation enforcement mechanisms, and adjudicatory and oversight processes.  The main strategic focus for employing these mechanisms is through fair and efficient enforcement based on the circumstances of each charge or complaint while maintaining a balance of meaningful relief for victims of discrimination.

As to enforcement, the SP provides a broad overview of the EEOC’s efforts to allocate its resources to ensure its efforts in stopping unlawful employment discrimination.  To that end, the EEOC indicates that it will continue its targeting of systemic discrimination through training staff on systemic cases and devoting additional resources to systemic litigation enforcement.  The SP included several performance measures for achieving enforcement goals, including measures on conciliation and litigation resolution, favorably resolving lawsuits, and increasing capacity for systemic investigations.

2. Education and Outreach

The SP prioritizes education and outreach for deterring employment discrimination before it occurs.  The SP focuses on providing education and outreach programs, projects, and events as cost-effective tools for enforcement.  Primarily these programs are aimed at individuals who historically have been subjected to employment discrimination.  Part of the EEOC’s education and outreach involves expanding use of technology through social media, ensuring the EEOC website is more user-friendly and accessible, and leveraging technology to reach the agency’s audience.

These efforts to improve on education and outreach are aimed at promoting public awareness of employment discrimination laws while maintaining information and guidance for employers, federal agencies, unions, and staffing agencies.  The SP provides an in-depth list of measuring education and outreach by utilizing technology to expand the EEOC’s audience and ensuring accessible delivery of information through events, programs, and up-to-date website accessibility and functionality.

3. Organizational Excellence

The SP makes clear that organizational excellence is the cornerstone of achieving the EEOC’s strategic goals.  The SP confirms that the EEOC aims to improve on its culture of accountability, inclusivity, and accessibility.  In addition, the EEOC seeks to continue protecting the public and advancing civil rights in the workplace by ensuring its resources are allocated properly to strengthen intake, outreach, education, enforcement, and service.

The EEOC’s organizational excellence strategic goal has two prongs, including improving the training of EEOC employees and enhancing the EEOC’s infrastructure.  For employees, the EEOC seeks to foster enhanced diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workplace, maintain employee retention, and implement leadership and succession plans.  Relative to the agency’s infrastructure, the SP embraces the increased use of technology through analytics, and management of fiscal resources promote the agency’s mission of serving the public.

Implications For Employers

The EEOC’s SP is an important publication for employers since it previews immediate action areas.  The SP’s focus on systemic discrimination, conciliation, and litigation, and increasing the Commission’s capacity for litigating alleged systemic violations shows the EEOC is ramping up to improve handling all aspects of charges.  The EEOC’s increased focus on technology and employment discrimination awareness similarly shows accessibility will continue to be a pillar of the agency.  Accordingly, prudent employers should be mindful of these strategic priorities, and prepare themselves for continued EEOC enforcement.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Above All Odds, LLC, No. 1:21-CV-02492 (D. Md. Aug. 15, 2023) (ECF No. 50), a federal district court in Maryland issued an arrest warrant for an ex-executive of a company involved in an EEOC lawsuit. The EEOC alleged that the ex-executive sexually harassed employees of a mental health clinic. The Court issued the  arrest warrant due to the ex-executive refusal to cooperate in the case and with discovery orders.

For employers facing EEOC-initiated lawsuits, the issuance of an arrest warrant is a novel development but informative in terms of the perils of continuously ignoring court orders. 

Case Background

The EEOC initiated this lawsuit on behalf of three former workers, Bricciana Strickland, Shana Hanson, and Saidah Feyijinmi, of Above All Odds, LLC (“Company”) and the Company’s co-founder, Raymond Dorsey, alleging a pattern of sexual harassment of female employees.  (Compl. at 1).

Strickland alleged Dorsey sent text messages asking for a date, and when she refused, Dorsey responded by stating he could fire her from her position.  Id. at 5-6. Hanson alleged Dorsey made repeated unwanted sexual advances including Dorsey asking if he could rub her back, sending an email with pornographic content, and throwing condoms on her desk.  Id. at 7. Feyijinmi alleged she saw Dorsey throw condoms on Hanson’s desk.  Id. at 8. Together, Hanson and Feyijinmi reported Dorsey’s sexual harassment to the Company’s senior management. Id. at 7.

Strickland continued to reject Dorsey’s advances and was demoted, and ultimately Dorsey ordered members of management staff to terminate her.  Id. at 6. Hanson was terminated in response to reporting Dorsey’s conduct.  Id. at 7. Feyjinmi was presented with a new contract of employment that lowered her salary and required her to work two positions, and after she requested time to review the contract before signing, the company terminated her before she had the opportunity to sign her contract.  Id. at 8-9.

The Arrest Warrant

Throughout the course of the lawsuit, Dorsey failed to respond to the EEOC’s complaint and ignored several show cause orders directing him to appear in court.  Subsequently, the court found Dorsey in contempt of court in June 2023.

Dorsey also ignored a subpoena to appear in the case brought by the EEOC.  Thereafter, the court authorized the arrest of Raymond Dorsey and issued an arrest warrant on August 15, 2023.

Implications For Employers

Employers that are confronted with EEOC-initiated litigation involving allegations of a pattern of sexual harassment should note that ignoring court filings, court proceedings, and orders issued by the court, may result in the court taking action.  In this instance, the court relied on the ex-executive’s lack of response to pleadings, court orders, and subpoenas leading to the court issuing an arrest warrant.  While the issuance of arrest warrants is rare in litigation, this development illustrates that court orders should not be taken lightly.

 

By Alex W. Karasik, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: InEqual Employment Opportunity Commission v. ITutorGroup, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-CV-2565 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2023), the EEOC and a tutoring company filed a Joint Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, memorializing a $365,000 settlement for claims involving hiring software that automatically rejected applicants based on their age. This is first EEOC settlement involving artificial intelligence (“AI”) software bias. As we previously blogged about here, eradicating discrimination stemming from AI software is an EEOC priority that is here to stay. For employers who utilize AI software in their hiring processes, this settlement highlights the potential risk of legal and monetary exposure when AI software generates hiring decisions that disparately impact applicants from protected classes.

Case Background

Defendants iTutorGroup, Inc., Shanghai Ping’An Intelligent Education Technology Co., LTD, and Tutor Group Limited (collectively “Defendants”) hired tutors to provide English-language tutoring to adults and children in China.  Id. at *3.  Defendants received tutor applications through their website.  The sole qualification to be hired as a tutor for Defendants is a bachelor’s degree.  Additionally, as part of the application process, applicants provide their date of birth.

On May 5, 2022, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Wendy Pincus, the Charging Party, who was over the age of 55 at the time she submitted her application.  The EEOC alleged that Charging Party provided her date of birth on her application and was immediately rejected.  Accordingly, the EEOC alleged that Defendants violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) for programming its hiring software to reject female applicants over 55 years old and male applicants over 60 years old.  Id. at *1. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that in early 2020, Defendants failed to hire Charging Party, Wendy Pincus, and more than 200 other qualified applicants age 55 and older from the United States because of their age.  Id.

The Consent Decree

On August 9, 2023, the parties filed a “Joint Notice Of Settlement Agreement And Requested Approval And Execution Of Consent Decree,” (the “Consent Decree.”).  Id.  The Consent Decree confirmed that the parties agreed to settle for $365,000, to be distributed to tutor applicants who were allegedly rejected by Defendants because of their age, during the time period of March 2020 through April 2020.  Id. at 15.  The settlement payments will be split evenly between compensatory damages and backpay.  Id. at 16.

In terms of non-monetary relief, the Consent Decree also requires Defendants to provide anti-discrimination policies and complaint procedures applicable to screening, hiring, and supervision of tutors and tutor applicants.  Id. at 9.  Further, the Consent Decree requires Defendants to provide training programs on an annual basis for all supervisors and managers involved in the hiring process.  Id. at 12-13.  The Consent Decree, which will remain in effect for five years, also contains reporting requirements and record-keeping requirements.  Most notably, the Consent Decree contains a monitoring requirement, which allows the EEOC to inspect the premises and records of the Defendants, and conduct interviews with the Defendant’s officers, agents, employees, and independent contractors to ensure compliance.

Implications For Employers

To best deter EEOC-initiated litigation involving AI in the hiring context, employers should review their AI software upon implementation to ensure applicants are not excluded based on any protected class.  Employers should also regularly audit the use of these programs to make sure the AI software is not resulting in adverse impact on applicants in protected-category groups.

This significant settlement should serve as a cautionary tale for businesses who use AI in hiring and are not actively monitoring its impact.  The EEOC’s commitment to its Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative is in full force.  If businesses have not been paying attention, now is the time to start.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Zev Grumet-Morris

Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Charter Communications, LLC, Case No 22-1231, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19528 (7th Cir. July 28, 2023), the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer in an EEOC enforcement lawsuit, holding that an employee was possibly entitled to a modified work schedule as an accommodation to make his commute safer.

This is a significant ruling in the context of EEOC-initiated ADA litigation, as employers may potentially see an increase in litigation related to denials of commute-related accommodation requests.

Case Background

The Charging Party, James Kimmons (“Kimmons’”), alleged that his employer, Charter Communications (“Defendant”) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by refusing to accommodate his request for a temporary modified work schedule. Kimmons, who suffers from cataracts, sought a temporary schedule modification allowing him to begin and end his workday two-hours earlier in order to avoid nighttime driving. While originally granting the 30-day request, Defendant ultimately declined to extend this accommodation for an additional 30-days while Kimmons sought closer living arrangements.

Kimmons filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. After conciliation efforts failed, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on Kimmons’ behalf. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, repeating the oft-cited understanding that employees are responsible for their own commute to and from the workplace. The district court further held that Kimmons’ disability did not affect his ability to perform the essential functions of his job. Id. at *6.

The EEOC thereafter appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit’s Decision

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In reaching this conclusion, the Seventh Circuit opined that the main question was whether the employee was entitled to a modified work schedule as an accommodation to make his commute safer. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the answer is “maybe.” Id. at *6.  

As a threshold question, the Seventh Circuit examined the threshold question of whether an employee’s work-schedule was inherently outside the scope of the ADA. Relying on decisions within its jurisdiction and those of its sister courts, the Seventh Circuit declined to offer a bright line rule. Instead, it concluded that the inquiry was fact-intensive and necessarily unbefitting for summary judgment resolution. Specifically, while acknowledging that “getting to and from work is in most cases the responsibility of an employee, not the employer,” the Seventh Circuit reasoned that an employee’s disability could interfere with that commute, thereby entitling him to a work-schedule accommodation “if commuting to work is a prerequisite to an essential job function, such as attendance in the workplace, and if the accommodation is reasonable.  Id. at *3.

Further, the Seventh Circuit determined that a trier of fact could find Kimmons’ travel to his workplace a prerequisite essential to his job duties, which demanded regular attendance. Moreover, whether or not Kimmons’ cataracts constituted a disability was a question of fact, it was not unreasonable to believe it negatively impacted his evening commutes. And because Defendant failed to establish how Kimmons’ schedule modification imposed an undue burden on its operations, the accommodation was not inherently unreasonable sufficient to warrant dismissal of the litigation. While businesses are not compelled to exhaust every avenue to improve trivial comforts of its disabled workforce, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that it will consider the precise accommodation at issue when evaluating these efforts. Id. at *21

Finally, the Seventh Circuit opined that it, “do[es] not intend to endorse an interpretation of the ADA where ‘no good deed goes unpunished.’”  Id. at *23.  The Seventh Circuit additionally clarified that the employer need not provide the exact accommodation the employee requests.  However, the Seventh Circuit held that a qualified individual’s disability substantially interferes with his ability to get to work and attendance at work is an essential function, an employer may sometimes be required to provide a commute-related accommodation, if reasonable under the circumstance.  Id. at *26.  Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and remanded to the district court.

Implications For Employers

This is a novel ruling in that it opens the possibility for employers to be held liable for accommodations related work scheduled based on commuting concerns.  While the Seventh Circuit made abundantly clear that it did not want to establish a bright-line rule, this decision demonstrates that in some situations, employers could potentially be responsible for granting accommodation requests related to work schedules and commutes.  Employers should thus continue to closely consider all accommodation requests, even those that may seem outside of the scope of day-to-day job duties.

 

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Jeffrey Zohn with their discussion of recent developments at the EEOC including the Commission’s current enforcement priorities, the nomination of Kalpana Kotagal as the new commissioner, and what employers can expect under the current leadership structure.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Blog readers, welcome to our Friday installment of the Class Action Weekly Wire. My name is Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris and I’m joined today by my colleague, Jeffrey Zohn, for this week’s episode. Welcome, Jeff!

Jeffrey Zohn: Thanks, Jerry. It’s great to be here, and I’m especially honored to be here because in today’s episode we get to mix it up where I got to interview you and ask you some questions about what’s going on with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, also known as the EEOC.

Jerry: Sounds good, fire away with those questions.

Jeff: All right so we’ll start out with an easier one for you – can you first explain about how the EEOC is structured in terms of its governance – who’s in charge, and how can one become part of the EEOC leadership?

Jerry: The EEOC is a creature of statute, it is in theory to be a bipartisan commission with leadership consisting of a chair, a vice chair, and three commissioners – and those five set policies for the EEOC, approve policy statements and enforcement guidance. A general counsel is also appointed by the President and reports to those commissioners, and typically the party in power that holds the White House will have a three to two advantage in terms of the composition of the five – the chair, the vice chair, and the three commissioners.

Jeff: Now of those five commissioners, are they all currently in place?

Jerry: Well, the EEOC has been dealing, like many government agencies, with recovering from the pandemic and from the election and so it has been operating for quite a while with only four commissioners – two Republicans and two Democrats. Although the EEOC and public pronouncements would not say things are deadlocked, people looking at the EEOC from the outside would suggest that there is an ideological deadlock with two Republican policy makers not agreeing with two Democratic policy makers, but in the last two weeks the Senate approved President Biden’s nomination of the fifth commissioner Kalpana Kotagal – she has yet to be sworn in, but will be sworn in any day now, and that will then allow the EEOC to have a full complement of policy makers and the five Commissioners, and will tip the balance in favor of kind of Democratic views of the policies and enforcement guidance memorandum of the EEOC.

Jeff: That sounds like a major development and something that could possibly bring some pretty significant changes to the EEOC.

Jerry: For employers it’s definitely, in the practical world in which we live, going to have a cause and effect that’s very different than what we’ve seen for the last two years, I think on several levels. The first level will be the issuance of policy guidance where the EEOC opines on how it interprets various statutes – and with a three to two majority with the Democrats, in my experience, what I’ve seen are very expansive interpretations of obligations that employers have under anti-discrimination laws and a broadening of the way the EEOC views rights of workers. Its views are not binding on federal courts, but its views are important, and its views activate the manner in which its investigators, district offices, and regional trial attorneys view the world and enforce the statute – and so there’s going to be a definite change, and the EEOC will act in a more activist manner to fulfill its policy mandates but it will do so with a tilt towards Democratic labor policies.

The second area where there will be a change most commentators believe, and I’m of the same opinion, that lawsuits – or investigations that have been in the queue for approval as lawsuits – will be approved and will begin to be filed. So the last couple of years EEOC-authorized lawsuits where the Commission sues in the public interest, on behalf of the United States against employers, on behalf of groups of employees – have been anywhere between about 85 and 105 lawsuits, and so its fiscal year starts on October 1 and goes to September 30. So we’re halfway through or a little past halfway through in the fiscal year, but I think what we’re going to see is an accelerated filing of lawsuits – especially what are known as systemic lawsuits that are bigger, brought on behalf of various groups of employees, hundreds sometimes thousands of employees, and so one way to look at the impact of the third Democratic commissioner is it will unleash the potential that the EEOC has in terms of litigation enforcement and I expect it to flex its muscle and bring more of those cases.

Jeff: So narrowing in a little bit more on Ms. Kotagal, the fifth appointment, the third Democrat – Jerry you’ve been one of the most distinguished lawyers in this field for a while, can you give us any background information on her?

Jerry: Well she is a very talented lawyer who also thinks expansively about this area and has handled big plaintiff-side employment discrimination class actions, she comes from the Cohen Milstein firm – probably one of the best if not the top plaintiff-side civil rights and employment discrimination law firm – she’s one of the key partners there. I’ve handled a myriad of cases against her, she’s an excellent lawyer, and has in the past few years been involved in movements: both the #MeToo movement and a movement that started in Hollywood, where Hollywood contracts for production of movies were created with a clause that would allow for hiring and use of a more diverse set of cast members and production personnel, and so she’s very interested in opening the doors of employment, she’s interested in bringing test cases to challenge policies, and she’s a champion of protected minority groups – so I expect her to utilize her expertise and bring it to the EEOC and to push the envelope, so to speak, in terms of what the EEOC does in enforcing employment discrimination laws

Jeff: It certainly sounds like her influence is going to be is going to be rapid and significant.

Jerry: I think so. I think the main thing on the EEOC’s agenda in terms of regulatory guidance will be the new Pregnant Workers Fairness Act where the EEOC will issue regulations and fill in the gaps, so to speak, of that law which is an amendment to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act that President Biden signed this year, and look for that to be kind of a signal of where the EEOC is going, and I expect it will be a very expansive document that will push the envelope even on that law to create more rights for workers who are pregnant and more obligations for employers – so that would be the first signal I would be looking for if I were an employer.

Jeff: Beyond that, are there any other EEOC developments that you think are worth talking about right now?

Jerry: I think the most relevant for most employers is the issue of systemic litigation that the EEOC has talked about it, but the number of systemic lawsuits that have been filed have been limited, and because the new commissioner’s background is on what I would call impact litigation, bringing cases to promote change, I think you’re going to be seeing test cases I think you’re going to be seeing cases brought on large against large employers, industry leaders to try and make a point and try and enforce the statute in a way that sends a signal to smaller players in the industry. So I think the EEOC is going to get back into the business of bringing large lawsuits against large employers that are very newsworthy.

Jeff: I think that should be the flashing red lights for the big companies to keep an eye on because that’s going to be impacting them directly. Definitely now is a great time for employers out there to make sure that they are compliant with all these requirements and the things that we think the EEOC is going to be going after.

Jerry: Absolutely, I think change is inevitable and the watchword is compliance compliance compliance is what employers need to be focused on at this point in terms of an activist EEOC.

Jeff: That is definitely a great advice, and I really appreciate all of the insights you had today, Jerry.

Jerry: Thanks all our loyal blog readers for joining us for this week’s Friday podcast. Signing off, this is Jeff and Jerry. Have a great day

Jeff: Bye everyone, thank you!

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00329, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95981 (D. Neb. May 31, 2023), a federal district court in Nebraska denied an employer’s partial motion to reconsider the Court’s prior denial of its motion for summary judgment, holding that facially discriminatory policies can be demonstrated through evidence other than hiring policy documents.

For employers facing EEOC-initiated lawsuits involving ADA claims in the hiring process, this decision is instructive in terms of the evidence courts will consider at the summary judgment stage, particularly training documents that may be discriminatory on their face.

Case Background

The EEOC filed suit on behalf of a hearing-impaired truck driver applicant (the “Claimant”) who submitted an application with Defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc. (“Werner”).  The Claimant, along with other hearing-impaired applicants, allegedly were subject to a different workflow for applications. The EEOC claimed an internal training document provided by Werner instructed its recruiters to provide a different workflow for applications from hearing-impaired drivers – if the recruiter was “aware of an FMCSA waiver or a hearing issue, then the recruiter was directed ‘do not Pre-Approve the application.’” Id. at *3. Instead, the recruiter would send the hearing-impaired applicants completed application “to the manager basket,” and management would decide to move forward or not. Id. Therefore, the EEOC contended Werner’s pre-approval procedure adversely affected hearing-impaired applicants.

After the Claimant filed an administrative charge, and the EEOC ultimately filed a lawsuit on his behalf, Werner moved for summary judgment. It argued that its training document at issue “does not unlawfully classify applicants because of their disability.” Id. at *4. Instead, Werner maintained diverting applications from hearing-impaired applicants was to verify that an applicant had a valid exemption from physical qualification standards. Id.

The Court rejected Werner’s argument and reasoned that the training document does instruct recruiters to treat hearing-impaired applicants differently from other applicants. Id. at *4-5. Subsequently, Werner filed a motion to reconsider the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

The Court’s Decision

The Court denied Werner’s motion for reconsideration.

In Werner’s motion for summary judgment, it asserted that the EEOC’s claim of a “facially discriminatory” hiring policy could only be based on a single training document without considering other evidence.  In its motion to reconsider, Werner pivoted and argued that the Court erred by considering what might be shown by evidence beyond the face of the training document. Id. at *5-6.  The Court reasoned that applicable case law authorities consider whether the policy is discriminatory on its face, but this inquiry is not dispositive of the entire claim. The Court also opined that the EEOC could demonstrate discriminatory intent through other evidence if the policy is not discriminatory on its face. Id. at *8.  The Court also noted that the policy at issue was facially discriminatory – “even if a policy isn’t discriminatory on its face (which, to reiterate, this document is.)” in light of Werner’s assertion. Id.

The Court rejected Werner’s argument that the EEOC’s claim of a facially discriminatory hiring policy was based exclusively on the training document itself.  First, the Court explained the basics of a discrimination claim require the EEOC must show, among other things, an adverse employment action because of disability. Second, the Court explained that discriminatory intent can be proved either through direct evidence of discrimination, or through a showing of disparate treatment. Id. at *6.  As to this point, the Court clarified there is direct evidence of discrimination when the “evidence shows a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to reasonably support a finding that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action.” Id.

The Court held that Werner’s training document evidenced disparate treatment, but the effect of that treatment, if any, occurred after the applications from hearing-impaired drivers were diverted to the “manager basket.”  Id. at *9.   The Court also found the EEOC was not bound by its pleading to rely exclusively on the face of the training document to support its claim.  Id.  Finally, the Court determined the disputed issue for the parties to focus on is whether accommodating a hearing-impaired placement driver is reasonable.  Id. at *10-11.  Therefore, the Court denied Werner’s motion to reconsider the denial of Werner’s motion for summary judgment.

Implications For Employers

Employers confronted with EEOC-initiated litigation involving hiring practices should take note that the Court relied heavily on additional evidence demonstrating discriminatory intent supporting the purported facially discriminatory policy. Further, from a practical standpoint, employers should carefully evaluate training documents that may impact applicants with disabilities, as courts are apt to scrutinize these materials.