17 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Blaine v. Mystere Living & Healthcare, Inc., No. 24-3121 (10th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. An occupational therapy assistant was terminated eleven days before her stated resignation date although she was paid through the full notice period. The employee alleged she was retaliated against under Title VII after reporting repeated sexual harassment by a coworker. The EEOC advocated for the reversal of the district court’s decision in favor of the employer by arguing that the district court mistakenly used the stricter “significant change in employment status” standard—applicable to discrimination claims—instead of the proper “materially adverse” standard that the Supreme Court set out in Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), which asks whether the employer’s action might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination complaint. Key v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, No. 24-11126 (11th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Lucas. An African American woman hired to work at a plant alleged that she was removed from her position after being told her dreadlocks violated a grooming policy and after disclosing her pregnancy. She filed discrimination and retaliation claims, but the district court dismissed most of them. The EEOC took the position that the lower court improperly granted summary judgment. In its Amicus Brief, the EEOC argued that the Plaintiff plausibly alleged that banning dreadlocks disproportionately affects Black individuals, to support a disparate impact claim. It also argued that the Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence suggesting the dreadlocks ban was racially motivated, to support a disparate treatment claim. Khatabi v. Car Auto Holdings LLC, No. 24-12573 (11th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. After the Plaintiff sued for constructive discharge and won, the employer invoked Title VII’s statutory damages cap. The EEOC in its Amicus Brief argued that the Eleventh Circuit should reverse the remittitur because the employer waived that affirmative defense by failing to assert it in its answer or pretrial stipulation. Smith v. General Motors LLC, No. 24-10841 (5th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. A forklift driver claimed that she suffered a head injury in August 2020 and was placed on long-term work restrictions, but that the employer repeatedly assigned her tasks outside those restrictions and ultimately terminated her employment in March 2022. The district court dismissed her ADA claims. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the district court relied on a definition of “substantially limited” to assess the Plaintiff’s disability allegations that the ADAAA expressly abrogated.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4