©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 20 19 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Minniti v. Crystal Window & Door Systems PA, LLC, No. 23-03132 (3d Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief in support of a plaintiff, arguing that when he stated opposition to, and refused to carry out, the firing of the only two Black employees of the plant he managed, a reasonable jury could decide that his actions constituted a protected activity under Title VII. Dike v. Columbia Hospital Corp. of Bay Area, No. 24-40058 (5th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief in arguing that an employer’s policy of honoring patients’ racial preferences – combined with a pattern of ridicule and insult – can constitute severe or pervasive harassment. Abdi v. Hennepin County, No. 24-1393 (8th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that a Plaintiff need not show that a Defendant’s disciplinary investigation and negative performance evaluation of him constitutes a sufficient adverse employment action under the ADA’s retaliation provision. The EEOC also argued that Title I failure to accommodate claims do not require a Plaintiff to show an adverse employment action. Turner v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 24-10031 (5th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Lucas, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Sonderling. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the district court erred in holding that the Federal Railroad Safety Act and its regulations preclude a plaintiff’s ADA claim. The EEOC also argued that the district court erred in holding that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual under the ADA because the defendant denied the plaintiff’s certification because the plaintiff failed to petition for administrative review of that denial. Case on appeal to the Fourth Circuit Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief supporting a plaintiff that filed ADA claims that were rejected by the district court because (1) her pregnancy-related medical condition was not a covered disability, and (2) her request to work fewer hours due to her medical condition was neither a request for a reasonable accommodation nor subject to the ADA’s antiretaliation provision. The district court also rejected the plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims under Title VII. The EEOC argued that the district court applied inapposite and incorrect legal standards under the ADA and Title VII. Meza v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 24-1367 (8th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Lucas, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Sonderling. The EEOC argued that the district court erred in holding that no jury could find that Union Pacific regarded plaintiff as having an impairment when Union Pacific barred him from work for five years because of alleged future safety concerns due to plaintiff’s brain injuries. Hall v. Coal Bed Services, Inc., 24-10572 (11th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC argued that the district court misapplied precedent by relying on non-material differences to hold that the plaintiffs’ comparator was not similarly situated in all material respect. The EEOC also argued that the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to support a reasonable inference of discrimination, defeating summary judgment on their Title VII disparate-treatment claim both under McDonnell Douglas and a convincing mosaic framework. Sutherland v. Peterson’s Oil Service, Inc., No. 24-1431 (1st Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC argued that the district court erred by applying pre-ADA Amendments Act of 2008 standards when concluding that the plaintiff could not establish he was disabled under the ADA The EEOC also argued that the district court erred in concluding the plaintiff could not perform the essential duties of his job with a reasonable accommodation because the district court did not cite to any record evidence that the accommodations at issue were not “reasonable” for someone in plaintiff’s position. Franks v. City of Oxford et al., 24-60295 (5th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC argued that the district court erred in holding that the elimination of plaintiff’s position, which resulted in her transfer, was not actionable under Title VII, even if it was retaliatory. The EEOC argued that disbanding plaintiff’s position, which resulted in a forced transfer, may have dissuaded reasonable employees in her position from complaining about discrimination. Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, No. 24-20269 (5th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Lucas, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Sonderling. The EEOC argued that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s ADA failure to accommodate claim, which was premised on her employer’s alleged undue delay in providing a reasonable accommodation and that the district court misstated the elements of an ADA interference claim. The EEOC argued that the plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to state a failure-to-accommodate claim and that an employer’s unreasonable delay in providing an accommodation can amount to a failure to accommodate in some circumstances. Thatch v. FedEx Freight, Inc., No. 24-1781 (4th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC argued that the district court erred by requiring plaintiff to plead an adverse action that imposed a “significant detriment” for his discrimination claim, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), which abrogated that standard. The EEOC also argued that the district court erred by not applying the adverse action standard for retaliation claims that the Supreme Court set out in Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67-68 (2006), which looks to whether the challenged action might dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining about discrimination.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4