18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 65 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. Editor’s Note : The DFEH’s motion was both highly unusual and unprecedented. The Court’s ruling determined that the issue was not even a close call. (x) Tenth Circuit EEOC v. JBS USA LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13012 (D. Colo. Jan. 25, 2021). The EEOC brought a lawsuit alleging a meatpacking plant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and religion. On August 8, 2011, the Court issued an order bifurcating the case. Id . at *5. Phase I of the trial was to address three issues, including: (i) whether Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawfully denying Muslim employees reasonable religious accommodations to pray and break their Ramadan fast from December 2007 through July 2011; (ii) whether Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of disciplining employees on the basis of their race, national origin, or religion during Ramadan 2008; and (iii) whether Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of retaliating against a group of black, Muslim, Somali employees for engaging in protected activity in opposition to discrimination during Ramadan 2008. The Court presided over a 16-day trial for Phase I from August 7 to August 31, 2017. Id . at *6. On September 24, 2018, the Court issued its Phase I Findings. Id . It found that: (i) while Defendant had denied Muslim employees a reasonable religious accommodation to pray during Ramadan (other than in 2009 and 2010), the EEOC had not made a requisite showing that any employees suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of Defendant’s policy denying unscheduled prayer breaks; (ii) the EEOC had failed to prove that Defendant’s disciplinary actions during Ramadan 2008 were motivated by a discriminatory animus; and (iii) the EEOC had failed to demonstrate that Defendant’s discipline of employees during Ramadan 2008 was for a retaliatory purpose rather for engaging in a work stoppage. As a result, the Court dismissed the EEOC’s Phase I pattern or practice claims. Id . at *7. The EEOC moved the Court to reconsider, and the Court denied the EEOC’s motion. The EEOC had asked the Court to reconsider its findings pursuant to the Tenth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Exby-Stolley v. Board Of County Commissioners, 979 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2020), a disability-accommodation case brought under the ADA. The EEOC argued that Exby-Stolley was an intervening change in Title VII religious accommodation law. First, the Court opined that Exby-Stolley was an ADA case where the jury was instructed that, in order for the Plaintiff to make out an ADA accommodation claim, the Plaintiff had to show that she had suffered an adverse employment action. Id . at *8-9. In holding that the ADA did not require that the Plaintiff prove that she suffered an adverse employment action, the Tenth Circuit compared the elements of an ADA accommodation claim with a religious accommodation claim brought under Title VII. Exby-Stolley explained that, while ADA claims do not require that a Plaintiff show an adverse employment action, in Title VII religious accommodation cases the prima facie case requires the employee to show among other things that “he or she was fired or not hired for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.” Id . at *9. The Court explained that in its Phase I Findings, and as the Tenth Circuit stated in Exby-Stolley, the adverse employment action requirement for Title VII religious-accommodation claims “is not new.” Id . at *10. The Court noted that, “In fact, the Tenth Circuit explained that the fact ‘[t]hat a disparate treatment claim – under Title VII or the ADA – would require an adverse employment action is wholly unremarkable.’” Id . Accordingly, the Court held that the law concerning religious accommodation claims under Title VII remained the same as it was before the Exby-Stolley decision, and therefore it denied the EEOC’s motion for reconsideration. (xi) Eleventh Circuit EEOC v. Doherty Enterprises Inc. , Case No. 14-CV-81184 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2021). The EEOC filed an action against Defendant for alleged violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis that Defendant maintained an arbitration agreement that allegedly interfered with the rights of employees to file discrimination charges with the EEOC. The Court previously had ruled that the arbitration agreement did not interfere with the ability of an applicant or employee to file a charge with the EEOC and the parties eventually settled the matter. Defendant subsequently moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party. The Court denied the motion. Defendant argued that the EEOC had no factual basis for the lawsuit because: (i) the clear language of the agreement was unambiguous; and (ii) when the EEOC filed the lawsuit, it was not aware of any employee that had been prevented from filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.