EEOC-Initiated Litigation - 2022 Edition

© 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-Initiated Litigation: 2022 Edition | 69 the basis of sex against female applicants. Finally, relative to the retaliation claims, the Court found that the EEOC established that Defendant retaliated against Arceneaux, when he was fired after his mother had engaged in protected activity by complaining to Defendant about its discriminatory practices of not hiring women. Defendant argued that there was nothing in the record that connected Alicia's protected activity to Defendant's actions against Arceneaux. The Court rejected that position. It opined that the close temporal proximity between the protected conduct and an adverse employment action was sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact of a causal connection and met the minimal requirement that the protected activity and adverse action were not wholly unrelated. However, the Court determined that while Defendant asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Arceneaux, including that he had performance and attendance issues, the EEOC established a dispute of fact regarding whether Defendant's reasons for terminating Arceneaux were pretextual. Finally, the Court concluded that the termination of Alicia’s son, Arceneaux, constituted an adverse action against Alicia. The Court ruled that the fact that Alicia’s son was fired, after she complained about Defendant’s discriminatory practices, would tend to have the effect of dissuading someone like Alicia from opposing practices that violated Title VII. As such, the Court denied Defendant’ motion on that basis as well. EEOC v. Nice Systems, Inc. , No. 20-CV-81021, 2021 WL 3707959 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2021). The EEOC initiated an enforcement action alleging that Defendant subjected the Intervener-Plaintiff to pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. After discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The Intervenor-Plaintiff worked for Defendant from August 2015 to March 2018 as a Sales Executive. In April 2017, she informed her direct supervisor that she was pregnant. Thereafter, the Intervenor-Plaintiff complained of the discriminatory treatment to her employer’s Director of Human Resources, Vice President of Solution Sales, and Regional Vice President. She also requested transfer to a different department, but the company was not able to accommodate that request. On March 2, 2018, the Intervenor-Plaintiff resigned. Id. at *4. The EEOC’s action alleged that the employer discriminated against the Intervenor- Plaintiff on the basis of her pregnancy by undertaking four actions, including: (i) transferring her existing sales accounts to a newly hired employee on a different team; (ii) refusing to assign a new sales lead in her territory; (iii) invoking the “windfall” provision of her employment contract to cap the amount of commission she could receive on an audit/settlement that she contributed to before she went on maternity leave; and (iv) upon her return from maternity leave, reassigning her Canada territory to a male colleague, and assigning to her a different territory. Id . at *2-3. As to the disparate treatment claim, the Court noted that despite requesting a sales lead for approximately a month and a half prior to her maternity leave, the Intervenor-Plaintiff’s supervisor did not assign one to her territory until almost two months after she returned from leave. As such, the Court held that a reasonable jury could find that the loss of this income- producing opportunity constituted an adverse employment action. Further, the Court found there was direct evidence of intentional discrimination when the supervisor announced on a conference call that he would not be assigning the Intervenor- Plaintiff new sales leads because of her “condition,” in reference to her pregnancy. Id. at *11. Accordingly, the Court held that Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the EEOC’s discrimination claim. Turning to the second claim asserting retaliation, the EEOC alleged, in part, that Defendant retaliated against the Intervenor-Plaintiff by paying her less commission on a deal than she should have received as a result of her maternity leave. Defendant argued that the Intervenor-Plaintiff did not originate the deal and participated minimally, and therefore she was not entitled to the sales commission. The Court concluded that summary judgment on the retaliation claim would be improper, since there was a question of fact as to whether she was entitled to the commission bonus. Finally, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding the constructive discharge claim. Viewing the totality of the evidence in the EEOC’s favor, the Court opined that the EEOC’s best theory for establishing the constructive discharge claim was that from the time the Intervenor-Plaintiff disclosed to her supervisor that she was pregnant, he took steps to siphon off income-producing opportunities from her sales pipeline, until her commission prospects were so diminished that she would have no choice but to resign. However, the Court held that even this scenario was not enough to meet the, “intolerable work environment,” standard. Id. at *20-21. Therefore, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the constructive discharge claim. EEOC v. University Of Miami , No. 19-CV-23131, 2021 WL 4459683 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2021). The EEOC brought claims of gender discrimination on behalf of the charging party, Louise Davidson-Schmich,