©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 16 15 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Several cases filed by the EEOC this year challenge employers’ assumptions that hearing impaired workers cannot perform jobs safely. For example, an employer in one case allegedly refused to hire an applicant and failed to discuss any reasonable accommodations with the applicant after the applicant failed a pre-employment hearing test.22 In another case, the employer allegedly told a hearing impaired applicant that the company would not hire an individual who did not read, write, or speak English or who communicated in sign language.23 Another case involved an employer who allegedly told a hearing impaired applicant that the applicant was not eligible for a position because the applicant’s disability presented safety concerns.24 Other cases filed by the EEOC in FY 2024 challenged employers’ alleged failures to provide reasonable accommodations. For example, one employer faced scrutiny for allegedly demoting a hearing-disabled employee to avoid providing personal protective equipment (“PPE”) as a reasonable accommodation to protect the employee’s remaining hearing.25 In another case, after a qualified applicant requested an ASL interpreter as an accommodation for an interview, the employer allegedly cancelled the interview and did not hire the applicant.26 Once again, these cases signal the EEOC’s message that it expects employers to engage in the interactive process with applicants and employees, including during the interview process, and ensure decisions regarding hiring and recruiting are not made based on stereotypes. 7 Staffing Company Issues In the FY 2024-2028 SEP, staffing relationships are no longer an “emerging and developing” issue, as they were in the previous SEP. Instead, the EEOC has expanded its efforts related to “vulnerable and underserved workers”—those “who may be unaware of their rights under [EEO] laws, may be reluctant or unable to exercise their legally protected rights, or have historically been underserved by federal employment discrimination protections”—which the EEOC treats as including “temporary workers.” 27 Accordingly, one of the EEOC’s priorities is “eliminating barriers in recruitments and hiring” in areas relevant to staffing, including the following: • limiting employees to temporary work when qualified for available permanent positions; • limiting access to temp-to-hire positions or other job training or advancement opportunities; • channeling, steering, or segregating individuals into specific jobs or job duties by protected group; • use of automated systems to target job advertisements, recruit applicants, or make or assist in hiring decisions where such systems intentionally exclude or adversely impact protected groups; • job advertisements that exclude or discourage certain demographic groups from applying; • restrictive application processes or systems, including online systems that are difficult for individuals with disabilities or other protected groups to access; and • screening tools or requirements that disproportionately impact workers based on protected status, including those using AI/automated systems, pre-employment tests, and background checks. 22 EEOC v. The Timken Corp., No. 1:24-cv-08983 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2024). 23 EEOC v. Wilson Logistics, Inc, 1:24-cv-640 (M.D.N.C. July 31, 2024). 24 EEOC v. Heart of Texas Goodwill Industries, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00498 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2024). 25 EEOC v. Smiths Detection, Inc., 1:24-cv-2510 (D. Md. Aug. 29, 2024). 26 EEOC v. Champion Media LLC, 7:24-cv-707 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2024). 27 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Strategic Enforcement Plan FY 2024-2028, Strategic Enforcement Plan Fiscal Years 20242028 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov). In FY 2024, the EEOC filed several suits related to temporary work arrangements, sometimes against a staffing agency and sometimes against the businesses that engage staffing agencies for temporary labor. In one such case, a staffing agency allegedly ended an applicant’s interview after the applicant asked for a possible religious accommodation to attend Friday prayer if his workplace was not near a mosque. According to the EEOC, the supervisor conducting the interview noted that the applicant was not hired due to his schedule and religious accommodation request. The EEOC further alleged that the staffing agency disqualified the applicant from other positions after the applicant followed up with the agency to understand why he was not hired for the position.28 In another case, a staffing agency failed to comply with its conciliation agreement regarding an EEOC charge alleging that the staffing agency enforced a “no-Spanish” rule without adequate business justification in violation of Title VII.29 8 Amicus Briefs and Other Noteworthy Filings The EEOC approved and filed Amicus Briefs in 37 cases during FY 2024. The filings were made in district courts, several circuit courts, and in one instance with the United States Supreme Court. A number of the briefs focused on how district courts have handled adverse employment actions following the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346, 346, 144 S. Ct. 967, 969, 218 L. Ed. 2d 322 (2024) where the Court held that employees only must show that a job transfer caused “some harm” to an identifiable term and condition of employment rather than a “significant harm.” The EEOC takes the position that district courts are inappropriately analyzing adverse employment actions by requiring plaintiffs to plead that they were subjected to an adverse employment action that caused them a significant harm. The EEOC also seems particularly interested in all facets of ADA claims, including reasonable accommodations and discrimination based on disability, with nearly one-third of the Amicus Briefs filed in 2024 addressing cases brought under that statute. The Supreme Court case that the EEOC filed an Amicus Brief in is one such case. In Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the EEOC argued that the City of Sanford’s policy of shortening the duration of a post-employment healthinsurance subsidy for employees who retire due to a disability violated the ADA. We will continue to follow EEOC Amicus Brief filings going into 2025 and track any changes that may be on the horizon in its enforcement strategy. The following is a summary of the EEOC Amicus filings that, taken together, provides valuable insight into the EEOC strategic direction and the legal issues it chooses to emphasize. Weaver v. Walgreen Co. No. 23-1763 (4th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the 90-day filing requirement following issuance of a notice of right to sue is not an element of a District Court’s jurisdiction. Rather, the EEOC took the position that the 90-day filing requirement is a claims-processing rule. Under this position, the argument that a plaintiff failed to file suit within the 90-day filing requirement is an affirmative defense and where assessing that defense requires factual development a defendant cannot challenge that on motion to dismiss. Vincent v. ATI Holdings LLC, et al. No. 23-12417 (11th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the lower court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of ATI Holdings, LLC, a rehabilitation-services provider that places athletic trainers in schools. The EEOC took the position that ATI Holdings LLC was a joint employer with control over the Plaintiff’s removal from employment at a high school. Specifically, the EEOC argued that ATI had sufficient control 28 EEOC v. Logic Staffing LLC, 2:24cv1557 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2024). 29 EEOC v. Total Emp. & Mgmt., No. 3:24-cv-05813 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2024).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4