©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 22 21 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, No. 23-997 (U.S. Supreme Court) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC argued that the City of Sanford’s adoption of a policy shortening the duration of a postemployment health-insurance subsidy it provided to employees who retire on account of a disability violated the ADA. The EEOC argued that the lower court erred in determining that a former-employee cannot challenge an allegedly discriminatory post-employment benefits policy because benefits were paid after the employee was no longer employed. Andrews v. Tri Star Sports and Entertainment Group, Inc., No. 23-5700 (6th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. The EEOC argued that the panel majority’s holding that Plaintiff’s asthma was not a disability contravened the amended ADA. Snyder v. Arconic Corp., No. 23-3188 (8th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued that the district court did not err by requiring a plaintiff to establish the prima facie elements of a religious-accommodation claim, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768, 773-74 (2015) did not eliminate the prima facia framework. The EEOC also argued that the district court correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to identify any religious practice or observance obliging him to object to the use of a rainbow symbol publicly or in a manner that the defendant’s policies prohibited. Vavra v. Honeywell International, Inc., No. 23-2823 (7th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued that unconscious bias trainings are not inherently discriminatory. The EEOC also argued that for the purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must proffer evidence that a reasonable person could believe a mandatory anti-discrimination training, such as unconscious bias training, was discriminatory. Case pending in the Northern District of Ohio Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued that Title VII standards permit private employers to adopt voluntary affirmativeaction plans to remedy manifest imbalances and that voluntary affirmative-action plans are not subject to strict scrutiny. Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, No. 23-665 (2nd Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued there is no basis in the statutory text of the ADA holding that an employer need not provide a reasonable accommodation if the qualified individual is able to perform the essential functions of his job without one. Accordingly, the EEOC argued that the ADA and the EEOC’s implementing regulations require employers to make reasonable accommodations even if unrelated to the performance of essential job functions. The plaintiff argued that she could only preform the essential functions of her job without an accommodation under great duress and harm. The district court rejected Plaintiff’s theory, holding that an employer need only provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation to perform essential functions of one’s job. Arnos v. The Lampo Group, LLC, No. 24-5011 (6th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued that the district court erred in dismissing a plaintiff’s religious nonconformity claim because the district court claimed that the plaintiff did not adequately plead his own religious beliefs, even though the law only required him to plead that his employer discriminated against him for not conforming to its religious beliefs. Mobley v. Workday, Inc., 3:23-cv-00770, (N.D. California) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued that Workday constitutes an employment agency because it provided screening and referral activities, and because Workday’s algorithmic tools perform precisely the same screening and referral functions as traditional employment agencies. The EEOC also argued that in his complaint, Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Workday is an indirect employer and an agent of plaintiff’s employers. Sheer v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., 24-1055 (10th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. Plaintiff alleged that her employer perceived her as having a mental-health impairment, mandated that she participate in employer-provided mental health counseling to address the perceived impairment, and then terminated her for refusing to sign a release authorizing disclosure of certain information about the mandatory counseling to her employer. The district court held that the mandatory referral was not a discriminatory adverse action because it did not constitute a “significant change in employment status.” The EEOC argued that a reasonable jury could find that defendant regarded plaintiff as disabled because it took prohibited actions against her based on its perception that she was suicidal. The EEOC also argued that a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job based on evidence that defendant would not have terminated her for performance reasons. The EEOC finally argued that a reasonable jury would not be compelled to accept defendant’s affirmative defense that its actions were justified as “job-related and consistent with business necessity” where the parties disputed key facts.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4