EEOC-Initiated Litigation - 2022 Edition

© 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-Initiated Litigation: 2022 Edition | 73 EEOC did not act in bad faith in the manner in which it obtained the arbitration agreement after it had been submitted to the EEOC during an investigation. Accordingly, the Court held that Defendant was not entitled to attorneys’ fees and therefore it denied Defendant’s motion. EEOC v. Green Lantern Inn , No 19-CV-6704, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157379 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2021). The EEOC filed an enforcement action alleging that Defendant subjected female employees to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC filed a motion for sanctions for failure to respond to the Court’s previously issued discovery orders. The Court granted the motion. The Court also struck several statements from Defendant’s answer to the EEOC’s complaint, as they were “scandalous” attacks on the EEOC’s counsel. Defendant asserted that the EEOC lied on behalf of a restaurant employee and also made personal attacks on the EEOC’s counsel alleging wrongdoing, including that the case was “a disgusting fraud,” and that the allegations were a “lie” and an “attack.” Id . at *11. The Court determined that the statements made by Defendant were highly prejudicial and not capable of being supported with admissible evidence. Id . at *12. Further, the Court ruled that several of Defendant’s affirmative defenses were inapplicable and should be dismissed. Finally, the Court found that sanctions regarding the discovery requests were warranted, since Defendant deliberately delayed the discovery process. The Court determined that the an appropriate sanction would be for Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and costs associated with filing the motion for sanctions. The Court further warned that further non-compliance could result in the entry of an order stating that Defendant was aware of the sexual harassment of the female employees. For these reasons, the Court granted the EEOC’s motion for sanctions. 2. EEOC Consent Decrees, Conciliation, And Settlements EEOC v. International Association Of Bridge Structural And Ornamental Ironworkers Local 580 , No. 71-CV-2877 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2021). The EEOC brought an enforcement action against the union and the state apprenticeship program, alleging that the program discriminated against Black and Hispanic employees on the basis of their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The parties ultimately settled the matter after decades of litigation. The Special Master assigned to the action recommended that the parties’ consent decree be denied. The EEOC's initial claims were resolved with a 1978 consent decree, but the Court subsequently issued three additional contempt orders since after finding in which it determined that Defendants were not in compliance with the consent decree. The parties submitted their joint consent decree to the Court and proposed ending the Special Master’s involvement. The Special Master found that the consent decree included only "vague and unsupported claims" and no evidence that would justify ending the Court's role in the dispute. Id . at 4. Further, the Special Master determined that the proposed consent decree would prevent Black and Hispanic members from suing to recover back pay based on allegations that the discrimination led to lost job opportunities. The Special Master opined that the underlying reason for the consent decree was to afford Black and Hispanic members work opportunities equivalent to Local 580’s non-minority counterparts. The Special Master observed that as to that objective, Defendants submitted no evidence of compliance, and the EEOC simply provided conclusory statements that Defendants had provided equal employment opportunities to Local 580’s Black and Hispanic members. The Special Master concluded that without proper data included to analyze the compliance with the consent decree, public interest weighed in favor of denial. For these reasons, the Special Master recommended that the proposed joint consent decree be denied. EEOC v. Activision Blizzard , No. 21-CV-7682 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021) . The EEOC filed an action on behalf of female employees alleging that they faced gender-based harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The parties ultimately reached a settlement and filed a proposed consent decree that established a voluntary claims process. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) moved to intervene in the action for purposes of “protecting the interests of California and its workers.” Id . at 1. The Court denied the motion. The DFEH claimed that it had a general interest in upholding the rights of California citizens and an interest in protecting the DFEH’s ability to prosecute its own parallel state court case against Defendant. As a result, the DFEH sought to challenge the voluntary claims process because it asserted that the consent decree would release California state law claims, and would allow Defendants to destroy evidence relevant to the DFEH’s state court case. Id . at 1-2. The Court found that the interest at issue actually belonged to those undergoing the claims process, not to the DFEH,

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4