EEOC-Initiated Litigation - 2022 Edition

68 | EEOC-Initiated Litigation: 2022 Edition © 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Court determined that there was nothing connecting the dots between the jobs as performed at Defendant, the movements assessed by the CRT test, the score each test generated, and the cut-off scores selected. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Defendant failed to meet its burden to show the CRT test was job-related. Likewise, the Court reasoned that nothing in the record showed that the CRT test was "essential to eliminating" workplace injuries or claims. The Court therefore granted the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. Mediacom Communications Corp. , No. 18-CV-166, 2021 WL 1011897 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 16, 2021). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of three female customer service representatives (“Plaintiff- Intervenors”) alleging that Defendant subjected the employees to a hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title I”). According to the EEOC, male customer service representative Marcus Christian regularly stared at the three Plaintiff-Intervenors and made them feel uncomfortable through inappropriate sexual conduct. Moreover, Christian allegedly touched Plaintiff-Intervenor Crystal Vinson’s back through her chair a number of times, grabbed her breast on one occasion, and forcibly tried to make Vinson touch his penis. The Plaintiff-Intervenors reported Christian’s conduct to Defendant, but after finding that its investigation was inconclusive, Defendant responded only by changing the Plaintiff- Intervenors’ schedules and seating arrangements as to avoid contact with Christian. The EEOC further claimed that Defendant denied Plaintiff-Intervenor Vinson a raise in retaliation for reporting Christian’s conduct, and that Vinson’s subsequent resignation amounted to a constructive discharge related to Christian’s alleged harassment. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court denied. With respect to the hostile work environment claim, Defendant argued that the EEOC failed to establish that: (i) the harassment was based on the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ sex; (ii) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive; and (iii) there was any legal basis to hold Defendant liable. Id. at *43. The Court reasoned that the EEOC offered adequate evidence of sex-based harassment, as testimony showed that Christian regularly followed and engaged with female employees, but never harassed any of Defendant’s male employees. Additionally, the Court found Christian’s conduct to be sufficiently severe or pervasive from both a subjective and objective perspective. On this issue, the Court pointed to several statements by the Plaintiff-Intervenors, including Vinson, saying that “she ‘just wanted to feel comfortable again” and Plaintiff-Intervenor Vaughn asserted that “Christian looked at her ‘like an animal looks at prey.’” Id. at *47- 48. In response, Defendant contended that it adequately responded to the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ complaints by conducting an internal investigation and altering the affected employees’ work schedules and seating arrangements. The Court disagreed. It determined that Defendant’s remedial actions did not stop Christian’s conduct, and that even after five other employees confirmed the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims, Defendant labeled the investigation as inconclusive and took no action against Christian. In terms of Plaintiff-Intervenor Vinson’s individual claims, the Court allowed her constructive discharge claim to proceed since Vinson already established the presence of adverse working conditions and provided Defendant with sufficient notice of her claim. Defendant argued that the retaliation claim failed because the EEOC did not establish a causal connection between the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ alleged protected activity and an adverse employment action, but the Court found that such an issue of material fact was more appropriate for a jury to resolve. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. NDI Office Furniture LLC , No. 2:18-CV-01592, 2021 WL 2635356 (N.D. Ala. June 25, 2021). The EEOC brought an action on behalf of charging parties Alicia Jenkins (“Alicia”) and her son, Arceneaux Jenkins, alleging that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it: (i) discriminated against Alicia and a group of female job applicants; (ii) engaged in a pattern or practice of failing to hire female applicants because of their sex, and (iii) retaliated against Alicia and Arceneaux. Defendant moved for summary judgment and the Court denied Defendant’s motion. The Court found that the EEOC had presented direct evidence that Defendant categorically discriminated against Alicia and women working in its facilities. Specifically, the EEOC presented evidence that when Alicia inquired about a Warehouse Coordinator position she was told that Defendant “did not hire women in the warehouse.” Id . at *5. Moreover, Defendant did not consider Alicia for the position after she inquired about it and instead it ultimately hired a man for the position. In addition to the statement that Defendant did not hire women in its warehouse, there was evidence that the manager was instructed not to hire women in the warehouse, which the Court concluded also established that Defendant had a pattern or practice of discrimination on