©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 36 35 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP occurs while an employee is engaged in protected conduct.102 While the NLRB acknowledges the concern that conflicts could arise between its holding and antidiscrimination laws, it says only that it will cross that bridge if it comes. The EEOC’s draft enforcement guidance is silent on the topic. E EEOC’s Emphasis on Combatting Systemic Discrimination Systemic discrimination refers to biases that are “built into systems, originating in the way work is organized” and “refers to structures that shape the work environment or employment prospects differently for different types or workers.” 103 The EEOC defines systemic cases as “pattern or practice, policy and/or class cases where the discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company or geographic location.” 104 In the EEOC’s FY 2024 Agency Financial Report, Chair Burrows emphasized the EEOC’s commitment and focus on combatting systemic discrimination. Since 2006, the EEOC has made “the identification, investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination cases (i.e. pattern or practice, policy, and/or class cases where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area) a top priority.” 105 In FY 2024, the EEOC filed 17 systemic lawsuits, a number that lagged behind the prior year but did surpass the number of such filings in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Below are some examples of the systemic discrimination lawsuits filed by the EEOC in FY 2024: • EEOC v. Genesh, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02445 (D. Kan. 2024): In a Title VII action, the EEOC alleges Burger King supervisors engaged in systemic sexual harassment of and retaliation against female employees (including minors) at restaurants in Lawrence, Kansas and Derby, Kansas. • EEOC v. Houston Independent School District, Case No. 4:24-cv-00125 (S.D. Tex. 2024): The EEOC sued the School District alleging it paid a group of female employee less than their male counterparts. The EEOC alleges that the pay disparity has existed since at least February 2019. • EEOC v. Allen Theatres Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-965 (D. N.M. 2024): In an action brought under the ADEA, the EEOC alleges a movie theater chain unlawfully enforced a discriminatory compensation policy that resulted in employees aged 65 or older receiving less in compensation than their younger counterparts. • EEOC v. Sheetz, Inc., CLI Transport, LP, Sheetz Distribution Services LLC. Case No. 1:24-cv01123-JKB (D. Md. 2024): According to the EEOC, a large convenience store chain maintained a practice of screening job applicants for records of criminal conviction, which resulted in a disproportionate screening out of Black, Native America/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants. Employers should expect that the Commission will continue to make good on its promise to litigate large-scale, high-impact, and high-profile investigations and cases that address the issues identified as its enforcement priorities and areas of focus. 102 Lion Elastomers LLC II, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023) (holding that employers must evaluate employee misconduct, including harassing conduct, against “setting-specific standards” to determine whether the misconduct is afforded impunity because the employee was engaged in conduct otherwise protected by the National Labor Relations Act.). 103 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Systemic Enforcement at the EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/systemic-enforcement-eeoc 104 Id. 105 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Strategic Plan 2022-2026, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-strategic-plan-2022-2026 PART III: District Office Profiles While the EEOC is a national enforcement body, the Commission’s 15 District Offices often take different approaches to their respective litigation and settlement activity. To that end, Part III provides an overview of key developments from each District Office in FY 2024. Each summary begins with a District Profile, which outlines key players and litigation statistics. These statistics include: 1) the number of lawsuits filed in FY 2024, followed by the district’s rank among other offices; 2) the average time period between the issuance of a determination letter and the subsequent failure to conciliate notice; 3) the average time period between the failure to conciliate notice and the EEOC’s complaint; and 4) the average time period between the issuance of a determination letter and the EEOC’s complaint. Finally, the District breakdowns also contain summaries of notable lawsuits and settlements attributable to each office in FY 2024. KEY CASES FILED IN FY 2024 EEOC vs. Sureste Prop. Grp., LLC, et al., 1:24-mi-99999 (N.D. Ga.) As described by the EEOC, the defendant property group allegedly terminated an African American employee because of his race. The EEOC alleges that the aggrieved employee was the only African American individual ever employed as a project development manager for the real estate company. He performed well in his role, despite being assigned more work than his white counterparts. However, less than a year into his tenure, the company terminated his employment claiming first that he was “lazy” and did not fit into the company’s “culture,” it later claimed that the role was eliminated. Despite claims that the project development manager role had been eliminated, a significantly less-qualified white employee was promoted to the position less than a month later. EEOC v. Mia Aesthetics Clinic ATL LLC, Mia Aesthetics Services, LLC, 1:24-cv-3407 (N.D. Ga.) According to the EEOC, a surgical sales coordinator diagnosed with breast cancer requested to work remotely for approximately three months while undergoing chemotherapy treatments. The employee provided medical documentation to support her request. Though in-person attendance was not an essential function of her sales coordinator position, the company refused to provide telework as an accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. EEOC Atlanta District Office DISTRICT PROFILE Director: Darrell Graham Regional Attorney: Marcus G. Keegan Merit Cases Filed in FY 2024: 11 Average Days Between Determination Letter & Failure to Conciliate: 87 Average Days Between Failure to Conciliate & Complaint: 165 Average Days Between Determination Letter & Complaint: 252 GA SC Atlanta ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4