EEOC-Initiated Litigation - 2022 Edition

© 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-Initiated Litigation: 2022 Edition | 63 functions of the job." Id . Thus, a qualified employee with a disability who can perform the essential functions of his job without an accommodation had no right to request one simply because it might improve the quality of his life outside of work. Id . at *9-10. The Court reasoned that Kimmons requested a different shift schedule not for the benefit of his performance, but the convenience of his commute. Accordingly, the Court held that Defendant was not required to grant the request for an extension of the shift change. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied the EEOC’s motion. 2. Race And National Origin Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment Cases EEOC v. Lindsay Ford LLC , No. 19-CV-2636, 2021 WL 5087851 (D. Md. Nov. 2, 2021). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of the charging party, Janak Maloney, a former car salesperson, alleging that he subjected to a hostile work environment that resulted in his constructive discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court granted the EEOC’s motion and denied Defendant’s motion. Maloney was of South Asian descent. He reported to intermediate sales managers who in turn reported to Jerry Clark, the General Manager of Lindsay Ford. Clark allegedly subjected Maloney to repeated insults about his appearance and called him derogatory names, and made harassing comments which were sexual in nature. Due to the on-going harassment, Maloney requested to be transferred to another dealership location. Maloney was informed of two options, both of which were rejected as undesirable, including: (i) that he could move to the service department, but would still report to Clark; or (ii) that he could transfer to a dealership 38 miles away. Thereafter, Maloney alleged that Clark grabbed his right buttock, after which he could not return to work because of feeling so sick and nauseous. Maloney reported the incidents to Defendants’ human recourses department, and it investigated the alleged discrimination. Defendants determined that the discriminatory conduct was corroborated by other employees, and it thereby imposed disciplinary action on Clark and a reduced his salary by $10,000. Defendants argued that based on the evidence, the EEOC could not establish facts sufficient to establish either a hostile work environment claim or a constructive discharge claim. The EEOC contended that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims. The Court determined that since the parties disputed whether Clark knew Maloney’s national origin, there was at a minimum, a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. The Court also found that there was sufficient evidence that Clark’s insulting statements were motivated by a discriminatory animus. As for sex discrimination, Defendants did not put forth any specific argument as to why Clark's harassment of Maloney was not based on sex. Whereas the EEOC had presented evidence that Clark engaged in harassment that was sexual in nature - including calling him "gay" and "bitch," physically groping Maloney, displaying pornography in front of him, and sending a fake email to Maloney accusing him of touching himself in front of a customer - Defendants had not provided a specific argument as to why this harassment was not based on sex. Therefore, the Court opined that summary judgment was not warranted on this claim. Id . at *17. The Court also found that Maloney’s conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive. Maloney repeatedly expressed his discomfort with the harassment and requested that Clark stop calling him a "serial killer" and throwing objects at him. Id . at *26. Further, the Court noted that after Clark groped him, Maloney struggled to function, felt light-headed, sweaty, and nauseous, had to leave work early, and later filed a police report about Clark's behavior. The Court noted that that a reasonable jury could find that the harassment was objectively severe or pervasive. The Court also determined that Defendants could be liable for the conduct because Clark was a second-level supervisor to Maloney and the highest-ranking manager at the car dealership. In addition, the Court held that the EEOC’s evidence was sufficient to support a finding of a constructive discharge, as there was genuine issue of material fact as to whether Maloney's working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Finally, the Court found that the undisputed facts showed that Defendants operated as an integrated enterprise and it granted the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment as to that issue. Accordingly, the Court granted the EEOC’s motion and denied Defendant’s motion. EEOC v. Proctor Financial, Inc. , No. 19-CV-11911, 2021 WL 4478929 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2021). The EEOC brought an enforcement action on behalf of Angela Kellogg, a Claims Examiner, alleging that

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4