{"id":2236,"date":"2025-06-18T17:40:55","date_gmt":"2025-06-18T21:40:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2236"},"modified":"2025-06-18T17:40:56","modified_gmt":"2025-06-18T21:40:56","slug":"transgender-worker-can-intervene-in-bias-suit-after-eeoc-moves-to-dismiss-action-with-prejudice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/06\/18\/transgender-worker-can-intervene-in-bias-suit-after-eeoc-moves-to-dismiss-action-with-prejudice\/","title":{"rendered":"Transgender Worker Can Intervene In Bias Suit After EEOC Moves To Dismiss Action With Prejudice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christian J. Palacios, and George J. Schaller<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>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>a transgender worker\u2019s 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 \u201crecognize[d] that it may not dictate what cases the EEOC pursues\u201d given that this was \u201cthe exclusive purview of the Executive Branch,\u201d the worker also deserved a fair opportunity to litigate her claims. \u00a0Id. at 3. \u00a0This decision is noteworthy for its unique procedural posture. \u00a0During 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\u2019s pending enforcement actions may not be so easily dismissed to the extent a private litigant\u2019s rights are implicated by the dismissal. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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<\/em>. 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<\/em>. at 2.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the partial motion for summary judgement was pending, the executive administration changed, and on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, \u201cDefending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.\u201d  After the Executive Order was issued, the EEOC moved to dismiss the action with<\/em> prejudice, on the basis that continuing to litigate the matter would violate the Trump administration\u2019s new Executive Order.  Id<\/em>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the EEOC\u2019s 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 \u00a71981 claims based on race, color, ethnicity, and national origin.  Id.<\/em> 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\u2019 fees.  Id<\/em>. at 3.  In response, Sis-Bro moved to dismiss Figueroa\u2019s motion to intervene, amongst other related motions, to dispose of the action entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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, \u201cthe EEOC\u2019s change of heart will not be one of those reasons.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 4.  The Court then granted the EEOC\u2019s motion to dismiss without<\/em> prejudice, to ensure Figueroa\u2019s rights were not impaired. Id. <\/em>at 4-5. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court next addressed Sis-Bro\u2019s arguments and rejected the contention that Figueroa\u2019s motion to intervene was untimely, given Sis-Bro was unable to demonstrate her second intervenor action would have any prejudicial effect.  Id.<\/em> at 6.  Although the Court did not allow Figueroa to re-plead her \u00a71981 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.<\/em> at 7-8.  The Court reasoned that although Figueroa did not assert these claims in her original intervenor complaint, \u201cshe placed her confidence in the good faith of the EEOC to pursue her rights along with its other statutory claims\u201d and she sought to timely intervene once it became clear that the EEOC \u201cchanged its mind.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 9.  Accordingly, the Court found Sis-Bro should be ready to litigate the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

As the above case illustrates, despite the fact that there has been a \u201cchanging of the guard\u201d and the EEOC under President Trump has drastically different enforcement priorities than the Biden Administration, the Commission\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given that the EEOC under President Trump has indicated it will be withdrawing from many areas championed during the Biden Administration (e.g.,<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christian J. Palacios, and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 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\u2019s petition to … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Transgender Worker Can Intervene In Bias Suit After EEOC Moves To Dismiss Action With Prejudice”<\/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":[7,105,96],"class_list":["post-2236","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":105,"user_id":677,"is_guest":0,"slug":"cpalacios","display_name":"Christian Palacios","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/12\/PalaciosChristian-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\/2236","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=2236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2236\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2236"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}