{"id":1196,"date":"2024-02-09T09:54:38","date_gmt":"2024-02-09T13:54:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1196"},"modified":"2024-02-09T09:54:38","modified_gmt":"2024-02-09T13:54:38","slug":"colorado-federal-court-rules-that-the-eeoc-may-seek-back-pay-claims-in-ada-lawsuit-against-trucking-company","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/02\/09\/colorado-federal-court-rules-that-the-eeoc-may-seek-back-pay-claims-in-ada-lawsuit-against-trucking-company\/","title":{"rendered":"Colorado Federal Court Rules That The EEOC May Seek Back Pay Claims In ADA Lawsuit Against Trucking Company"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller<\/b><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/i>: <\/b>In <\/b>Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Western Distributing Co.<\/i>, No. 1:16-CV-01727, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17225 (D. Colo. Jan. 31, 2024), Judge William J. Martinez<\/i> of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied<\/a> Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and granted in part and denied in part<\/a>\u00a0Defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider.\u00a0 Both post-trial motions involved disparate impact claims for qualified disabled employees concerning Defendant\u2019s return-to-work policies.\u00a0 For employers facing EEOC-initiated lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act \u00a0of 1990 (the \u201cADA\u201d) concerning employment policies, this decision is instructive in terms of the record evidence and filings courts will consider when deciding post-trial motions. <\/i><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/b><\/p>\n

On July 7, 2016, the EEOC filed suit on behalf of individuals with disabilities who worked for Defendant Western Distributing Co. (\u201cWestern\u201d), a trucking company.\u00a0 The EEOC alleged Western\u2019s employment policies disparately impacted these individuals under the ADA.<\/p>\n

Western\u2019s policies required employees to return to work on a \u201cfull-duty\u201d basis after medical leave; required certain drivers to static push and pull 130 pounds of weight; and required certain drivers to be able to static push and pull 130 pounds of weight at 58 inches above the ground.\u00a0 Id.<\/i> at 2.<\/p>\n

In January 2023, a jury decided that Western\u2019s \u201cfull-duty\u201d policy had a disparate impact on disabled drivers. \u00a0The post-trial motions resulted from the jury\u2019s decision and Western moved to dismiss for lack of standing (\u201cStanding Motion\u201d) and moved to reconsider the Court\u2019s denial of its yet-to-be-filed Rule 50(b) motion (\u201cMotion to Reconsider\u201d).<\/p>\n

Standing Motion<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court denied Western\u2019s Standing Motion.\u00a0 In reviewing Western\u2019s arguments, the Court determined Western put \u201cgreat weight \u2026 on: (1) Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis T. Babcock\u2019s Bifurcation Order; and (2) several statements by the EEOC\u2019s counsel and the Court during the trial.\u201d Id.<\/i> at 2.<\/p>\n

The Court found the obvious purpose of the bifurcation order was \u201c(1) to give the parties a clear procedure for trying this action; and (2) to give the jury issues it can legally decide and reserve for the Court issues upon which it must rule.\u201d \u00a0Id. <\/i>at 3.\u00a0 The Court reasoned that Judge Babcock\u2019s bifurcation order \u201cclearly contemplate[d] separate fact finding on \u2018all individual claims and resultant damages\u2019\u201d and construing the order otherwise would be \u201cunjust and border on absurd.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/i>at 4.<\/p>\n

As to the statements during trial, the Court concluded that \u201cback pay is viewed as equitable relief . . . to be decided by the judge.\u201d Id. <\/i>at 3.\u00a0 Therefore, the Court opined that it \u201cwill not ascribe to it the power to foreclose retrospective relief to which the EEOC and aggrieved individuals might be entitled.\u00a0 Nor will the Court rule such relief is improper simply because the EEOC did not present any damages evidence to a jury that could not award equitable back pay.\u201d\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/i>at 4. <\/i><\/p>\n

Motion to Reconsider<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court granted Western\u2019s request to reconsider arguments raised in its initial Rule 50(a) motion.\u00a0 The Court addressed Western\u2019s arguments and denied each in full.<\/p>\n

First, Western argued \u201cthe EEOC waived its Disparate Impact Claim to the extent it was based on the \u201cfull-duty policy\u201d by failing to include this claim in its proposed \u201cChallenge Standards\u201d instruction.\u00a0 Id.<\/i> at 5.<\/p>\n

The Court determined its order one month before trial on the EEOC\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment included both the \u201cfull-duty and maximum leave policies \u2018[as] two of the thirteen discriminatory standards, criteria, or methods of administration that form the basis of the Disparate Impact Claim.\u2019\u201d \u00a0Id. <\/i>at 6.\u00a0 The Court also reasoned that Western was aware of the need to defend against the full-duty policy given the \u201csignificant body of evidence Western in fact prepared and marshaled to do just that.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/i><\/p>\n

Second, Western sought reconsideration concerning the adequacy of the evidence the EEOC presented at trial with respect to the existence of the full-duty policy and its disparate impact on qualified individuals with disabilities.\u00a0 Id. <\/i>at 7.\u00a0The Court denied Western\u2019s request to re-weigh the evidence as the jury during trial \u201cwas attentive, engaged, and clearly thoughtful in issuing a narrow verdict.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/i>at 8.\u00a0 As to the disparate impact portion, the Court highlighted that this portion was \u201ca retread of one of Western\u2019s rejected summary judgment arguments.\u201d\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/i>at 7. \u00a0Therefore, the Court decided it would \u201cnot functionally reverse its own legal conclusions reached during the summary judgment phase.\u201d\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/i>at 8. <\/i><\/p>\n

For the same reasons, the Court denied Western\u2019s third argument regarding statistical evidence of the 130-pound push\/pull tests as a \u201cre-tread\u201d of an issue already decided \u00a0on summary judgment.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/i>Finally, the Court denied Western\u2019s argument because it \u201c[was] merely a short summary of the arguments raised in the Standing Motion.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/i><\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/b><\/p>\n

Employers that are confronted with EEOC-initiated litigation involving employment policies should note that the Court relied heavily on the established record including prior issued orders, previous motions raising the same or similar arguments, and statements made by counsel at trial.<\/p>\n

Further, from a practical standpoint, employers should carefully evaluate employment policies that may impact individuals with disabilities, as courts and juries are apt to scrutinize these materials.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways: In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Western Distributing Co., No. 1:16-CV-01727, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17225 (D. Colo. Jan. 31, 2024), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Colorado Federal Court Rules That The EEOC May Seek Back Pay Claims In ADA Lawsuit Against Trucking Company”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,96],"class_list":["post-1196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":96,"user_id":655,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gschaller","display_name":"George Schaller","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/schallergeorge-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1196"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}