64 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2024 EDITION ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP be “something more than a mere possibility, which serves to keep the case alive.” Id. (citing United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953). But injunctive relief is not appropriate “when there is no proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination. E.E.O.C. v. RadioShack Corp., No. 10-CV-02365-LTB-BNB, 2012 WL 6090283, at *6 (D. Colo. Dec. 6, 2012). A District Court in Colorado did not grant injunctive relief where there was “no reason to believe that the single unlawful act ‘will likely occur again.’” Id. Indeed, as one court noted, a finding that an employer “discriminated against one individual on the basis of disability” was not “standing alone, sufficient to warrant mandating the entire Department of Commerce post an anti-discrimination notice.” Id. Although the EEOC often seeks wide-ranging injunctive relief, Seyfarth’s survey of post-trial injunctive relief awards demonstrates that District Courts simply do not tend to award the breadth and depth of relief demanded by the Commission. In fact, in the past 10 years, most grants of injunctive relief after an EEOC trial victory consisted of a general prohibition on future discrimination, and training or policy modifications, if warranted. The majority of the injunctive relief imposed by the courts have been limited to two or three year period. Courts imposed an injunction period of more than three years in only a few cases, and these five year periods were not unexpected given the large compensatory or punitive damages involved. NOTABLE EEOC TRIAL VICTORIES IN FY 2023 EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC and Werner Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-00462 (D. Ne.) On September 1, 2023, a jury awarded a deaf applicant $36 million in punitive damages and $75,000 in compensatory damages in a disability discrimination case filed by the EEOC. In the suit, the EEOC claimed that the defendants, truckload carriers, failed to hire the applicant because of his hearing impairment. The EEOC further claimed that the applicant had obtained his commercial driver’s license and was otherwise qualified for the position. Defendants argued, however, that they could not hire the applicant because he could not complete the required training program, which purportedly required a two-way conversation with a trainer, that it was unsafe for a driver, like the applicant, to take his eyes off of the road to read sign language or to communicate in another non-verbal way, and that defendants continued to fail to hire new deaf drivers. The jury ostensibly rejected Werner’s argument that its failure to hire the applicant was based on ‘business necessity.’ EEOC v. Coastal Drilling East LLC, 2:21-cv-01220 (W. D. Pa) On December 5, 2022, a jury awarded $24,000 in compensatory damages to a Black former employee who was forced to resign his employment with defendants. The EEOC argued that the Black employee was subjected to severe race-based harassment by coworkers, including the persistent use of racial slurs, including the n-word, and multiple instances of displaying nooses. The EEOC further argued that the employee’s supervisor participated in, and tolerated this harassment, and that the defendant failed to stop the harassment, which compelled the employee to resign. On August 16th, 2023, the presiding District Judge further ordered that the defendants pay the Black employee an additional $56.093.62 in back pay and other relief, and ordered a two-year permanent injunction barring the defendants from engaging in or tolerating racial harassment and requiring them to implement other measures to prevent further violations of federal law. EEOC v. The Ohio State University, 2:20-cv-04624 (S.D. Oh) Defendant The Ohio State University defeated the EEOC in a jury trial on March 6, 2023. The EEOC sued The Ohio State University and alleged that it fired and then failed to re-hire an employee based on his age. The EEOC also alleged that he was replaced by a younger employee. The University argued that the employee’s position was eliminated, and that his duties were divided between two other employees, both of whom were over 40 years old, and that the fact that he was not rehired for another position was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including a COVID-19 pandemic-related hiring freeze, and the presence of more qualified candidates. After a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of The University. EEOC v. St. Joseph’s/Candler Health System Inc., 4:20-cv-00112 (S.D. Ga.) Defendant St. Joseph’s/ Candler Health System Inc. defeated the EEOC in a jury trial on January 12, 2023. The EEOC sued St. Joseph’s, a hospital system based in Savannah, Georgia, in May 2020 because St. Joseph’s revoked an individual’s job offer for a safety officer position because of a medical evaluation that revealed that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4