EEOC-Initiated Litigation - 2022 Edition

55 | EEOC-Initiated Litigation: 2022 Edition © 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP PART II COMPENDIUM OF SIGNIFICANT EEOC-LITIGATION DECISIONS IN 2021 A. Motions To Dismiss, Procedural And Jurisdictional Attacks 1. Motions To Dismiss EEOC v. Al Meghani Enterprises , No. 21-CV-00760, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224558 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2021). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of the charging party, Rebecca Garcia, alleging that Defendant subjected her to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The EEOC contended that Garcia was subjected to sexual harassment under both the quid pro quo and hostile work environment theories as well as retaliation. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Garcia was subject to harassing comments, sexually explicit text messages, and threats of termination by her store manager. Ultimately the store manager terminated Garcia’s employment. Defendant argued that the EEOC must distinguish in its initial pleading whether the alleged sexual harassment constituted a quid pro quo or a hostile work environment theory, and the court should dismiss the opposing theory. Id . at *7. The Court disagreed. It opined that at the pleading stage, the only requirement was that EEOC's complaint include a short and plain statement showing that Garcia was entitled to relief and which gave Defendant fair notice of the grounds and cause of action. Id . at *8. The Court ruled that the EEOC adequately alleged a quid pro quo theory because Garcia expressed to her Store Manage she was not interested in, and repeatedly rejected, his sexual propositions; the Store Manager was the highest ranking employee in her location and was her supervisor; the Store Manager threatened to terminate her; and she was ultimately terminated. Id . The Court ruled that at this point in the litigation, the EEOC’s allegations were sufficient to support a causal nexus between Garcia’s termination and her rejection of the Store Manager's sexual propositions. Id . at *10. Defendant also contended that the EEOC failed to articulate facts sufficient to support a cause of action on the hostile work environment theory. Id . at *10-11. The Court ruled that Defendant’s argument failed because whether it "knew or should have known" was not an element when the alleged harasser was a supervisor. The EEOC's alleged that the Store Manager was Garcia's supervisor and was the only manager who work closely with Garcia. The Court thus held that the complaint plausibly alleged facts of a hostile work environment claim when the alleged harasser was a supervisor. Finally, as to the retaliation claims, the Court reasoned that the EEOC’s allegations that Garcia was terminated less than one month after being hired were sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement to assert a causal connection between Garcia's protected activity and her termination. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. EEOC v. Danny's Restaurant, LLC , No. 16-CV-00769, 2021 WL 3701339, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 2021). The EEOC filed an action alleging that Defendants, adult entertainment clubs, discriminated against Black dancers on the basis of their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for sanctions, which the Court denied. Defendants asserted that the EEOC engaged in "witness tampering" by coercing one of Defendants’ managers into signing a witness statement favorable to the EEOC. Id. at 2. The EEOC argued Defendants’ motion should be dismissed as untimely. The Court agreed with the EEOC to the extent that it was filed after the deadline for dispositive motions and "well after" Defendant was aware of the allegedly offending behavior. Id . at 3-4. The Court held that the EEOC did not do anything wrong by obtaining the affidavit. Further, the Court noted that it did not have the alleged affidavit and other pertinent filings with the motion, and that it was not the EEOC’s responsibility to put before the Court admissible evidence received from Defendant. The Court concluded that “when the sensational verbiage” was stripped away from Defendant’s allegations, there was nothing