©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 16 Hartson v. Compwest Insurance Co., No. 24-1651 (6th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. An employee requested a medical exemption from the company’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy due to severe allergic reactions to antibiotics and vaccines, supported by a physician’s note warning of serious disability or death. The employee claimed that the company denied her an exemption without further inquiry and terminated her employment when she did not comply with the vaccination deadline. The EEOC advocated for reversal of the district court’s dismissal arguing that plaintiffs do not need to allege detailed facts about how their impairment affects major life activities, and that a plausible claim of disability suffices. Smith v. City of Union, OH Police Dep’t, No. 24-3489 (6th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. A police officer was first terminated and then reinstated by an arbitrator, but the employer allegedly delayed his return by requiring a psychological fitness-for-duty exam. During the delay, younger officers were promoted or rehired. The Plaintiff alleged retaliation for filing an age discrimination complaint. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The EEOC took the position that forcing an employee to undergo a psychological fitness-for-duty examination may constitute a materially adverse action. It additionally argued that the lower court applied a stricter “would dissuade” standard instead of the correct “could well dissuade” or “might dissuade” standard required for retaliation claims. McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., No. 24-3259 (9th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Lucas. The employer offered the Plaintiff a job but allegedly rescinded it after learning she was in a same-sex marriage, citing its religious standards of conduct requiring employees to adhere to “Biblically based behavior.” The EEOC advocated for affirming the district court’s ruling in favor of the Plaintiff arguing that Defendant is not exempt under Title VII’s religious organization exemption, noting that no federal appellate court in the country permits religiously motivated sex discrimination. It further argued that the Plaintiff’s sex is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the customer service role to which she applied. Lange v. Houston County, GA, No. 22-13626-U (11th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Lucas. A transgender woman and longtime sheriff’s deputy claimed she was denied insurance coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming surgery due to exclusions in the county’s health plan. The district court highlighted that the same procedures would be covered for other medical reasons (e.g., cancer treatment), but not for gender dysphoria. In a joint Amicus Brief with the Department of Justice, the EEOC urged that the lower court’s ruling be affirmed, arguing that the plan’s denial of care solely for gender transition purposes is facially discriminatory on the basis of sex.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4