©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 24 23 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Gray v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 24-3086 (6th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued that the district court set forth an inapposite legal standard in analyzing plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the ADA by setting forth the standard for assessing disparate-treatment claims in its opinion. The EEOC also argued that the district court failed to consider other important aspects of plaintiff’s case and misapplied the correct legal standard for an adverse employment action under an ADA retaliation claim. Liu v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 22-16507, 22-16712 (9th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued that Uber’s use of a star-rating system to terminate drivers violates Title VII because it disparately impacts white drivers. The EEOC argued that it was improper for the district court to dismiss plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint because he lacked sufficient statistical or other evidentiary support to plausibly plead his claim. The EEOC argued that the court applied an unnecessarily high pleading standard to plaintiff’s complaints. Sharpe-Miller v. Walmart, No. 24-2055 (10th Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioners Lucas, Sonderling. The EEOC argued that the district court committed several errors with respect to the plaintiff’s Title VII sex-discrimination claims, including misapplying the burden-shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) in analyzing his disparate-treatment claim and applying incorrect legal standards to plaintiff’s hostile-work-environment claim. The EEOC argued that the district court erred in holding that plaintiff’s demotion was not an adverse employment action and that the district court erred in analyzing plaintiff’s hostile-work-environment claim by disregarding comments, requiring him to show interference with his work performance and a “steady barrage” of offensive comments. Lambert and Shanks v. International Union of Bricklayers, No. 23-7141 & No. 23-7145 (D.C. Circuit) Approved by: Commissioners Burrows, Kotagal, Samuels; Disapproved by: Commissioner Lucas. The EEOC argued that the union enforced a policy that caused a disparate impact on Black employees by requiring that all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or to obtain a religious or disabilitybased exemption by a certain deadline. The EEOC argued that most Black employees received less information and less time to meet the deadline than most White employee. The district court dismissed the two cases at the pleading stage because the plaintiffs voluntarily chose to not get vaccinated and accordingly could not state a claim. The EEOC argued that the district court erred in several respects, including by requiring proof rather than plausible allegations and suggesting that any individuals who “voluntarily” did not comply with the policy cannot establish causation in a disparate impact case. B EEOC Focus on Equal Pay Protections The EEOC is the federal government’s most powerful agency for the enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws in the workplace. Authorized by Congress to wield broad investigative and subpoena powers for the prevention and remediation of unlawful employment practices, the EEOC’s enforcement mechanisms cover a range of activities, from individual and systemic claims investigations, conciliation, litigation and monitoring compliance, to serving as an agent for effecting broader policy change in employment sectors throughout the country. Each iteration of the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan has included a focus on advancing equal pay for all workers.30 The number of EEOC lawsuits alleging equal pay violations has dropped significantly in recent years. This has led to a decline in legal decisions relating to equal pay issues, at least those involving the EEOC as a party. The EEOC filed only two Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) cases in federal court in 2024. Both are in the early stages of litigation. First, in EEOC v. Houston Independent School District, 4:24-cv-00125, filed in the Southern District of Texas on January 11, 2024, the EEOC alleges that defendant HISD, a public school district, violated the EPA by paying lower wages to female Senior Career & Technical Education Program Specialists than it pays to male employees in the same role. The EEOC alleges defendant interpreted its own compensation manual unfairly by limiting the credit assigned to female employees for previous work experience outside of an education setting, resulting in a lower starting salary. The EEOC claims this resulted in male employees being compensated at higher rates than their female colleagues who had equal or more relevant experience. Second, in EEOC v. AccentCare, Inc. 3:23-cv-01646, filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on September 27, 2024, the EEOC alleges that AccentCare, Inc. violated the EPA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC alleges that AccentCare, a home healthcare agency, paid female Licensed Practical Nurses lower wages than a male counterpart for equal work. The complaint further alleges that AccentCare unlawfully retaliated against a female nurse by terminating her employment after she repeatedly complained about the pay disparity. In both cases, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory damages, and an order requiring defendants to implement policies and practices to prevent future pay discrimination. Equal pay litigation, itself – apart from the EEOC’s involvement – continues apace. And the EEOC has been actively attempting to steer the results, even if not as a party plaintiff. For example, in September 2023, the EEOC filed an amicus brief in favor of reversal of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama’s decision in Williams v. Alabama State University.31 In that case, a female Athletic Director of a university alleged she was underpaid compared to her male successor in the same position. Before the university hired her, the plaintiff had earned a Master’s Degree in Athletic Administration and worked for two other Division I schools. When plaintiff was hired in 2018, she was given a $135,000 salary with performance incentives. When she asked for a raise the following year, the university denied her request and gave her a one-time $5,000 signing bonus.32 Williams resigned in 2021, and the university posted the Athletic Director position again, modifying the education and experience requirements. On education, the posting required “a master’s degree, preferably in sports management or sports administration, an MBA or terminal degree.” On experience, the posting required “at least seven to ten years of experience in major leadership posts in sports administration and management.” 33 The university hired a male who had a Master’s Degree in Secondary Education and a PhD in Higher Education Administration. He had never been an athletic director before. But he requested and received a starting salary of $170,000 along with performance incentives.34 30 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). 31 Williams v. Ala. State Univ., No. 2:22-cv-48-ECM, 2023 WL 4632386 (M.D. Ala. July 19, 2023). 32 Id. at *2. 33 Id. 34 Id. at *3.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4