{"id":2995,"date":"2026-06-04T11:49:57","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T15:49:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2995"},"modified":"2026-06-04T11:49:58","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T15:49:58","slug":"colorado-federal-court-allows-employer-to-seek-attorneys-fees-against-eeoc-after-deeming-long-covid-claims-frivolous","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/06\/04\/colorado-federal-court-allows-employer-to-seek-attorneys-fees-against-eeoc-after-deeming-long-covid-claims-frivolous\/","title":{"rendered":"Colorado Federal Court Allows Employer To Seek Attorneys\u2019 Fees Against EEOC After Deeming Long COVID Claims Frivolous"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Bernadette Coyle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong> On June 1, 2026, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. A&A Appliance, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-2456 (D. Colo. June 1, 2026), Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted<\/a> Defendant A&A Appliances, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cA&A\u201d) motion to deem the EEOC\u2019s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (\u201cADA\u201d) frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation, entitling the employer to seek a full award of attorneys\u2019 fees.\u00a0 This decision is an important read for corporate counsel facing employment discrimination cases, particularly EEOC-initiated litigation.\u00a0 The ruling demonstrates that the federal agency can face fee-shifting consequences when it pursues claims that lack evidentiary support from their inception.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Defendant A&A Appliance, Inc. (\u201cA&A\u201d) employed Karima Javanzad from February 2019 to June 2020.  During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Javanzad sought a 12-week FMLA leave for varied reasons, including her own possible COVID-19 infection, her son\u2019s illness, and a gastrointestinal condition.  A&A approved the medical leave retroactively, covering mid-March through early June 2020.  Over the following weeks, A&A and Ms. Javanzad exchanged emails, calls, and texts about when her leave would expire and whether an extension was possible.  When Ms. Javanzad did not return to work after her leave ran out, A&A terminated her employment on June 10, 2020, explaining that it had offered to extend her leave only if the original FMLA-triggering condition warranted it, and that her gastrointestinal disorder (unrelated to COVID-19) did not qualify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ms. Javanzad subsequently filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in December 2020, asserting that A&A had discriminated against her based on her disability and retaliated against her for seeking a reasonable accommodation.  Following its investigation, the EEOC concluded there was reasonable cause to believe A&A violated the ADA and attempted to resolve the matter through conciliation.  After those efforts failed, the EEOC filed suit in September 2023 claiming: (1) failure to accommodate, (2) disparate treatment, and (3) retaliation under the ADA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In September 2025, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of A&A on every claim, concluding that the EEOC had not demonstrated that A&A was ever on notice of a qualifying disability that required accommodation under the ADA.  A&A then moved for an order deeming the EEOC\u2019s claims frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation so that it could recover its full attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Chief Judge Domenico granted A&A\u2019s motion.  The Court applied the standard from Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC<\/em>, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), which permits an award of attorney\u2019s fees to a prevailing defendant in an ADA case where the court finds that the plaintiff\u2019s claim was \u201cfrivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at 422.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court applied three factors from the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s decision in Walker v. NationsBank of Florida, N.A.<\/em>, 53 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1995), which the Tenth Circuit has affirmed: (1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case; (2) whether the defendant offered to settle; and (3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial or held a full-blown trial on the merits.  All three factors weighed in A&A\u2019s favor \u2014 the EEOC failed to establish a prima facie<\/em> case, A&A offered to settle, and the case was dismissed on summary judgment before trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court rejected the EEOC\u2019s argument that the Christiansburg Garment<\/em> standard is met only when a party \u201cutterly fails to produce any evidence in support of material issues necessary to withstand summary judgment.\u201d  The Court explained that while the EEOC presented some evidence that Ms. Javanzad had a disability and requested leave, it failed to present evidence for the critical element of A&A\u2019s knowledge of the claimed disability.  As the Court emphasized, \u201c[a] \u2018health condition\u2019 does not equate to a qualifying disability under the ADA\u201d and \u201cknowledge of a health condition is not necessarily knowledge of a disability.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, the Court found that the EEOC had multiple years before initiating the action in September 2023 to investigate the facts and apply established case law.  The EEOC\u2019s own initial complaint showed that it knew Ms. Javanzad was diagnosed with vocal cord paralysis and gastritis after her June 9 endoscopy, and thus presumably after her June 10 termination, and that she was diagnosed with COVID-19 after termination.  These facts undermined the EEOC\u2019s assertion that its evidence changed throughout discovery.  Moreover, fact discovery closed in July 2024, seven months before the dispositive motion deadline, and A&A raised issues of factual and legal deficiencies throughout litigation prior to summary judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Court noted that the EEOC is not a \u201cregular plaintiff\u201d and that courts may consider distinctions between the Commission and private plaintiffs.  Quoting the Fifth Circuit, the Court observed that the EEOC \u201cowes duties to employers as well: a duty reasonably to investigate charges, a duty to conciliate in good faith, and a duty to cease enforcement attempts after learning that an action lacks merit.\u201d  EEOC v. Agro Distribution, LLC<\/em>, 555 F.3d 462, 473 (5th Cir. 2009).  The Court concluded: \u201cMs. Javanzad might have been excused from pressing these issues.  The EEOC is not.\u201d For these reasons, the Court entitled A&A to reasonable attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

For employers facing EEOC-initiated litigation, this decision underscores the importance of raising factual and legal deficiencies early, consistently and persistently throughout discovery, as the Court credited A&A\u2019s efforts to put the EEOC on notice of the weaknesses in its case.  This decision also reinforces that while there is a high threshold for establishing entitlement to attorney\u2019s fees, prevailing defendants are not without recourse when the EEOC presses claims lacking foundational evidentiary support.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Bernadette Coyle Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 1, 2026, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. A&A Appliance, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-2456 (D. Colo. June 1, 2026), Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted Defendant A&A Appliances, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cA&A\u201d) motion … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Colorado Federal Court Allows Employer To Seek Attorneys\u2019 Fees Against EEOC After Deeming Long COVID Claims Frivolous”<\/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":[7,121,137],"class_list":["post-2995","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":121,"user_id":685,"is_guest":0,"slug":"tealberty","display_name":"Tiffany E. Alberty","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/06\/albertytiffany-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":137,"user_id":720,"is_guest":0,"slug":"bcoyle","display_name":"Bernadette Coyle","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/04\/coylebernadette-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\/2995","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=2995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2995\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2995"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}