©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 18 17 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP over the essential terms and conditions over the Plaintiff’s work and was solely responsible for her salary benefits. Further, the EEOC argued that ATI had previously removed trainers from the high school and exercised a sufficient degree of control to constitute a joint employer. Ringhofer et al. v. Mayo Clinic Ambulance et al. Nos. 23-2994, 23-2995, 23-2996, 23-2997, 232999 (8th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief in support of religious accommodations for refusing mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. The case involves a registered nurse and a paramedic who were longtime employees for the Mayo Clinic. The two employees objected to Mayo Clinic’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy claiming that they object to vaccines that are produced or tested with fetal cells. The district court granted Mayo Clinic’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the EEOC argued that the employees plausibly pled religious beliefs that conflicted with Mayo Clinic’s vaccination requirement. Yates v. Spring Independent School District, No. 23-20441 (5th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. In Yates, a teacher in his late sixties claimed that his employer, a school district, discriminated against him because of his age, violating the ADEA, Title VII, and the ADA by reassigning him to a position in which he was no longer a lead teacher responsible for his own classroom but was instead inside of another teacher’s classroom, placed on support plans, and placed on administrative leave for four months. The EEOC took the position that a jury could find that Yates established an adverse action sufficient to sustain his ADEA discrimination claim. The EEOC argued that the district court erred in relying on the Fifth Circuit’s former “ultimate employment decision” standard in holding that the Plaintiff’s placement on a performance improvement plan was not an adverse action. Raymond v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, No. 23-3126 (10th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief taking the position that a one-time reduction in force can form the basis for ADEA liability under the Teamsters pattern-or-practice framework. Thomas v. Dallas Independent School District, No. 23-10882 (5th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief taking the position that a Plaintiff does not need to plead all of the elements of a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss. Valdes v. Kendall Healthcare Group, Ltd. No. 23-12983 (11th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that Kendall Healthcare’s decision to discontinue a Plaintiff’s participation in a paid clinical training program was sufficiently adverse as a matter of law to support discrimination claims under the ADEA. The EEOC argued that the district court failed to apply the proper standards governing Plaintiff’s retaliation and discrimination claims and that discrimination with respect to training programs is actionable under the ADEA as long as the training is materially related to the employee’s job responsibilities or possibilities for advancement. Alburquerque v. The De Moya Group, Inc., 23-13157 (11th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the lower court articulated the incorrect standard for determining whether an employer’s conduct constitutes a “materially adverse action.” The EEOC argued that the lower court erred in holding that an individual’s physical assault of a plaintiff did not constitute a materially adverse employment action that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. The EEOC also argued that district court made an inappropriate inference at summary judgment that the individual who verbally threatened Plaintiff did it solely to protect his father rather than to retaliate against the Plaintiff. Case on appeal to the Third Circuit Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief taking the position that a plaintiff can invoke the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASASHA) and therefore avoid pursuing their sexual harassment claims through arbitration, even if they do not allege sexual advances or conduct motivated by sexual desire. Weathers v. Houston Methodist Hospital et al., 23-20536 (5th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief in support of a pro se plaintiff who filed his charge two days after the deadline arguing that the plaintiff’s verification of her charge “relates back” to timely submissions made to the EEOC. Bolden v. CAEI, Inc., No. 23-2195 (4th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Lucas, Samuels. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief supporting a plaintiff who failed to name one defendant in his charge of discrimination, arguing that the circuit should recognize the identity-of-interest exception to Title VII’s naming requirement. Batten v. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., No. 23-14199 (11th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Lucas, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Sonderling. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief in support of a plaintiff amputee who asked to bring his service dog to his job as a reasonable accommodation. The Defendant did not have an objection to the request that it would impose an undue hardship but refused the Plaintiff’s request and proposed a single alternative that the Plaintiff claimed was ineffective and he was subsequently fired. The EEOC argued that the district court erred by concluding that the plaintiff’s ability to struggle through pain and danger to perform essential functions of his position deprived him of the right to a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC urged the 11th Circuit to reject the proposition that the ADA requires only accommodations that are strictly necessary for performance of essential job functions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4