15 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Huber v. Westar Foods, Inc., No. 23-1087 (8th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC argued that an employer acts “on the basis of disability” in violation of the ADA when its decision to discipline is based on assumptions or judgments about the nature, extent, or impact of the employee’s disability, rather than on an individualized assessment of the employee’s actual capabilities. Additionally, the EEOC took the position that an employer’s “honest belief” that an employee violated its policy does not automatically shield it from liability under the ADA. Smith v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc., No. 24-5549 (6th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. Two African American truck drivers alleged that they were subjected to the repeated use of the slur “monkey ass” by their supervisors; were provided fewer trainings, given less time off, assigned less desirable job duties; and denied fair pay. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer because a reasonable jury could find that supervisors repeatedly calling the Plaintiffs “monkey ass” both constituted race-based harassment and was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of their employment. The EEOC took the position that a discrete employment-related action, including unfavorable work assignments, can contribute to a hostile work environment. Additionally, the EEOC argued that the district court erred in requiring the Plaintiffs to identify comparators who were “non‑African American” rather than “white,” arguing that “Black” and “White” may unquestionably be used as racial categories in litigating Title VII discrimination and harassment claims. Doe v. Saber Healthcare Group, No. 24-2106 (3rd Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Lucas. A gender nonconforming lesbian woman of color worked as a nursing assistant at a facility where she alleged she was subjected to reduced work hours, physical assault by a resident, and dismissive or hostile responses from staff when she reported the mistreatment. She claimed she was effectively terminated when her employer stopped scheduling her for shifts after she raised concerns about her treatment. The EEOC advocated for affirming the district court’s decision that the Plaintiff’s claims constituted a “sexual harassment dispute” under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASASHA), thereby invalidating a mandatory arbitration agreement that would have required the complaint to be heard by an arbitrator rather than in court. Pratt v. Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, No 24-1901 (7th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. An HR manager allegedly was terminated after reporting multiple instances of inappropriate and discriminatory behavior, including racist and sexist remarks by senior leaders. The EEOC argued that the lower court applied an incorrect legal standard by holding HR professionals to a higher bar and by mischaracterizing what constitutes protected opposition to a hostile work environment. The EEOC took the position that managers and human resources employees are subject to the same standard for assessing protected activity as other employees. The EEOC argued that the district court applied an overly strict and incorrect standard for hostile work environment claims by requiring harassment to be both severe and pervasive, demanding intent to harass, and failing to recognize that employees can oppose harassment before it becomes fully actionable under Title VII.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4