EEOC-Initiated Litigation - 2022 Edition

74 | EEOC-Initiated Litigation: 2022 Edition © 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP and if it were to accept the DFEH’s argument, it would essentially be able to intervene in any employment action in the state. The Court opined that the DFEH’s interpretation was over-broad. The Court also reasoned it would be unlikely that the Court would ever enter a consent decree that would purport to allow or mandate destruction of evidence relevant to litigation. For these reasons, the Court denied the motion to intervene. EEOC v. International Association Of Bridge Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers Local 580 , No. 71-CV-02877, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239816 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2021). The EEOC filed an enforcement action alleging that Defendants, several labor organizations, engaged in racially discriminatory practices in selecting apprentices and providing job opportunities to minority members in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The parties entered in to a consent decree in 1978 that the Court approved, which imposed specific obligations upon Defendants to rid the labor organizations of the effects of previous racial discrimination and to foster non-discriminatory job selection and apprenticeships in the union membership. In the following years, Defendants failed to comply with requirements of the consent decree, the EEOC instituted numerous enforcement actions to comply with the terms of the consent decree. The parties subsequently filed a joint motion to enter into a proposed consent decree that would begin a three-year process to end the previous consent decree on the grounds that Defendants had significantly increased representation of Black and Hispanic members in the labor organizations and among the leadership, Defendants' recent record of claimed cooperation with the EEOC, and the purported lack of recent Title VII violations by Defendants. Id. at *5-6. The Court denied the motion. It found that the parties failed to make any showing that Defendants cooperated with the consent decree beyond mere conclusory allegations. The Court explained that it needed further information regarding the alleged changed circumstances to ensure that the actual claims at issue have been resolved. Id. at *7. The Court thereby ordered the EEOC to produce information concerning: (i) the EEOC’s outreach to Black and Hispanic members; (ii) the available employment opportunities for Black and Hispanic members; and (iii) the current work hour disparities between White union members and Black and Hispanic union members. For these reasons, the Court denied the parties’ motion for a renewed consent decree.