{"id":2056,"date":"2025-02-26T09:58:52","date_gmt":"2025-02-26T13:58:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2056"},"modified":"2025-02-26T10:21:54","modified_gmt":"2025-02-26T14:21:54","slug":"eeoc-male-bias-suit-against-sports-bar-restaurant-group-survives-dismissal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/02\/26\/eeoc-male-bias-suit-against-sports-bar-restaurant-group-survives-dismissal\/","title":{"rendered":"EEOC Male Bias Suit Against Sports Bar Restaurant Group Survives Dismissal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Anna Sheridan, George J. Schaller<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em>: <\/strong>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 <\/a>Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss an EEOC lawsuit alleging discriminatory hiring practices against men at a chain of sports bars.\u00a0 The EEOC\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case signals a new wave of anti-discrimination enforcement actions against companies that prioritize hiring practices that may exclude male applicants.  The Commission\u2019s litigation efforts are in full swing, and companies must review their hiring practices to ensure all applicants are weighed neutrally during the application process.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Complaint Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EEOC\u2019s complaint alleges that between December 1, 2019, and February 18, 2022, Kickback Jack\u2019s restaurants located throughout North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee discriminated against males by failing to hire men for front of house, non-managerial positions.  Id.<\/em> at *1.  Kickback Jack\u2019s is owned and operated by Battleground Restaurants, Inc. and Battleground Restaurant Group, Inc. (\u201cBRGI\u201d) (collectively \u201cDefendants\u201d).  Id.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kickback Jack\u2019s employs \u201cservers, hosts, and bartenders in non-managerial front-of-house positions,\u201d all of which require no \u201cspecial skills or qualifications.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *2. Kickback Jack\u2019s advertisements state that applicants need only \u201c[b]ring [their] great attitude to work and [Kickback Jack\u2019s] will train you.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The underlying charge was filed on July 31, 2020, when a female server, Melody Roe, filed an EEOC charge of discrimination against Kickback Jack\u2019s.  Id.<\/em>  Included in Roe\u2019s charge of discrimination was statements that Kickback Jack\u2019s \u201chas a policy and\/or practice of only hiring females for front of house positions and not into management.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *3.  The EEOC\u2019s investigation into Roe\u2019s charge of discrimination found that Battleground Restaurants, Inc. \u201cmaintained a policy or practice . . . of failing or refusing to hire males for non-managerial front of house positions because of their sex.\u201d  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Commission\u2019s investigation further revealed that of the 2,100 non-managerial front-of-house employees employed between December 1, 2019, and February 18, 2022, \u201capproximately 3% were male\u201d and some Kickback Jack\u2019s locations \u201cdid not employ male servers at all.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result of these newly uncovered hiring practices, the EEOC filed a complaint asserting that \u201ca predominantly female front-of-house workforce cannot be justified by any legitimate business purposes\u201d and that Defendants\u2019 hiring practices \u201cwere and are intentional and willful.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  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. <\/em>at *5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendants moved to dismiss the EEOC\u2019s complaint, dismiss or strike BRGI, and requested the Court certify the case for interlocutory appeal.  Id.<\/em> at *1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

District Court\u2019s Ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court denied the Defendants\u2019 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendants argued the EEOC failed to provide them with adequate notice of its claims on \u201cbehalf of male applicants and the Title VII records violations.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *5.  Defendants did not dispute that it received notice of Roe\u2019s charge of discrimination within 10 days (as required by 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-5(b)).  Rather, the Defendants argued the charge of discrimination did not \u201cgive them notice of an EEOC investigation into discrimination against males in hiring.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *7. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EEOC countered that the investigation into discrimination against males was implicit in Roe\u2019s allegations that the restaurant had \u201ca policy and\/or practice of only hiring females\u201d for front of house positions.  Id<\/em>.The Court agreed that the \u201calleged discrimination against males for front of house positions appears on the face of the charge of discrimination,\u201d 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. <\/em>at *8<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also denied Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the EEOC\u2019s preservation of records claim because no 10-day notice requirement exists under the statutory provisions.  Id. <\/em>at *8-9.  The Court further disagreed with Defendants that the EEOC\u2019s claims should be limited to 180 days before Defendants received notice of the charge of discrimination because \u201cthe complaint [did] not contain the facts necessary to assess whether the EEOC\u2019s claims exceed Title VII\u2019s statute of limitations period.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *10-11. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Defendants\u2019 argument to dismiss or strike BRGI, the Court opined that the Commission plausibly alleged BRGI is \u201cessentially, Kickback Jack\u2019s operator.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *12.  The Court held the EEOC can sue BRGI \u201cdespite 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.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *15. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the EEOC\u2019s allegations of Title VII sex discrimination in hiring, the Court denied the Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss because the EEOC \u201cplausibly alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination by using statistics\u201d which demonstrated of the 2,100 non-managerial front-of-house employees approximately only 3% were male.  Id.  <\/em>at *18.  And in some instances, locations \u201cdid not employ any male servers at all.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  The EEOC also satisfied its pleading requirements under Title VII as it alleged Defendants discriminated \u201cagainst male applicants \u2013\u2013 a protected class \u2014 \u201d and alleged that \u201cmale applicants qualified\u201d for the front-of-house roles.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*17-18.  Based on these findings, the Court reasoned \u201cthis type of \u2018gross disparity\u2019 plausibly demonstrates an inference of discrimination against males who applied to work as servers.\u201d  Id. <\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also denied Defendants\u2019 request for certification stating it did \u201cnot find any esoteric issues meriting an interlocutory appeal.\u201d Id. <\/em>at *2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Employers\u2019 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 \u201cpattern-or-practice\u201d 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.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/em>, 1:93-CV-7709 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 1997); see also Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc.<\/em>, No. 09-CV-00002 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2009).  Lawry\u2019s restaurants were also hit with an EEOC pattern or practice lawsuit in 2006 alleging that Lawry\u2019s practice of only hiring females for its server positions constituted gender discrimination.  See EEOC v. Lawry\u2019s Restaurants, Inc.<\/em>, No. CV 06-01963 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2006). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019t demonstrate discrimination otherwise an EEOC action may be on the horizon.   <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u2019 motion to dismiss an EEOC lawsuit alleging discriminatory hiring practices against men at a chain of sports bars.\u00a0 The EEOC\u2019s … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “EEOC Male Bias Suit Against Sports Bar Restaurant Group Survives Dismissal”<\/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":[7,133,96],"class_list":["post-2056","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":133,"user_id":711,"is_guest":0,"slug":"asheridan","display_name":"Anna Sheridan","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/04\/sheridananna-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\/2056","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=2056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2056"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}