©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 76 75 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP C Trial Judgment Although EEOC trial victories are widely publicized by the agency, they are, in reality, quite rare. This, not necessarily because of the merits of any given action, but because the EEOC tries very few cases to verdict. As with the broader universe of employment law actions, the uncertainty of trial often drives the parties to pre-trial resolution. Indeed, according to Lex Machina’s 2023 Employment Litigation Report (the most recent report available), only 1.3% of all employment cases are actually tried to verdict.116 Monetary relief awarded by juries vary widely, depending on the number of claimants, the nature of the action, and the type of position at issue. Some of these trial verdicts are highlighted in Part III. The monetary relief in an EEOC-initiated action is no different than what a private litigant could be awarded in individual action, with the important exception that the EEOC cannot be awarded attorneys’ fees as a prevailing litigant. A more important distinction is non-monetary relief. Although non-monetary/injunctive relief can theoretically be sought in private litigation, few private litigants seek relief beyond backpay, front pay and compensatory, punitive and/or liquidated damages (depending on the statute at issue). The EEOC, on the other hand, routinely seeks non-monetary relief after a trial victory. The District Court Judge, and not a jury, awards any nonmonetary relief. The injunctive relief demanded by the EEOC often mirrors the elements sought in Consent Decrees (see above). A District Court considers a variety of factors when deciding what injunctive relief is proper after an EEOC trial win. To determine whether a post-trial award warrants the imposition of injunctive relief, courts primarily consider “whether the facts indicate a danger of future violations” of unlawful employment practices. E.E.O.C. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1250 (10th Cir. 1999) If an employer intentionally engages in a practice whereby a “danger of future violations” exists, a court may find it necessary to grant injunctive relief. Id. The danger of recurrent violations must be “something more than a mere possibility, which serves to keep the case alive.” United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953). But injunctive relief is not appropriate “when there is no proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination. E.E.O.C. v. RadioShack Corp., No. 10-CV02365-LTB-BNB, 2012 WL 6090283, at *6 (D. Colo. Dec. 6, 2012). A District Court in Colorado did not grant injunctive relief where there was “no reason to believe that the single unlawful act ‘will likely occur again.’” Id. Indeed, as one court noted, a finding that an employer “discriminated against one individual on the basis of disability” was not “standing alone, sufficient to warrant mandating the entire Department of Commerce post an anti-discrimination notice.” Id. Although the EEOC often seeks wide-ranging injunctive relief, Seyfarth’s survey of post-trial injunctive relief awards demonstrates that District Courts simply do not tend to award the breadth and depth of relief demanded by the Commission. In fact, in the past 10 years, most grants of injunctive relief after an EEOC trial victory consisted of a general prohibition on future discrimination, and training or policy modifications, if warranted. The majority of the injunctive relief imposed by the courts have been limited to two or three year period. Courts imposed an injunction period of more than three years in only a few cases, and these five year periods were not unexpected given the large compensatory or punitive damages involved. NOTABLE EEOC TRIAL VICTORIES IN FY 2024 EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01807-D (N.D.Tex.) On November 20, 2024, a jury awarded a former employee $170,000 in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages in a workplace sexual harassment case filed by the EEOC. That same day, the judge presiding over the trial reduced the punitive damages to $130,000. The EEOC argued that the former employee had been subjected to a hostile work environment by her coworkers’ constant crude and sexual jokes, that the company swept the harassment under the rug with a shoddy investigation, and that the company retaliated against the employee by placing her on indefinite administrative leave after she reported the harassment. The company argued that it did not know about the harassment and that once it did, 116 Lex Machina did not publish the Employment Litigation Report in 2024. it took prompt remedial action. The company also argued that paid administrative leave was not an adverse employment action. The jury found for the EEOC on the sexual harassment claim, but not the retaliation claim. EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC and Werner Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-00462 (D.Neb.) On January 11, 2024, a judge awarded a deaf applicant $300,000 in punitive damages and approximately $36,000 in backpay in a disability discrimination case filed by the EEOC. A jury previously awarded $36 million in punitive damages – over one hundred times the statutory cap. The judge also ordered the defendants to submit bi-annual reports to the EEOC for three years. In the suit, the EEOC claimed that the defendants, a truckload carrier, failed to hire the applicant because he was deaf. The EEOC argued that the applicant was fully qualified for the job because he obtained a commercial driver’s license and an exemption from federal physical qualification standards for interstate drivers. The defendants maintained that the applicant was not qualified for the job due to his lack of prior trucking experience and inability to safely complete the required training program. The judgment has been appealed to the 8th Circuit. Case pending in the Northern District of New York: On February 8, 2024, a jury awarded a deaf applicant $25,000 in back pay, $150,000 in emotional distress damages, and $1.5 million in punitive damages in a disability discrimination case filed by the EEOC. According to the lawsuit, the defendant, a distribution company, failed to interview the claimant upon learning she was deaf and refused to hire her for two entry-level warehouse positions. The defendant argued that the decisionmaker who declined to interview the applicant was unaware the applicant was disabled. A seven-person jury did not accept this argument, finding that the failure to interview and subsequent failure to hire constituted violations of federal law. NOTABLE EEOC TRIAL LOSS IN FY 2024 EEOC v. Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01339 (W.D. Wash.) On March 14, 2024, an eight-person jury issued a defense verdict for a healthcare company, finding that providing an accommodation for the applicant, who sought a registered nurse position, would pose an undue hardship. The company rescinded its conditional job offer to the applicant after the interactive process revealed his physical limitations from a permanent leg injury could not be accommodated due to the physical nature of the job. The EEOC had sought significant injunctive relief in addition to maximum compensatory damages for the applicant. Subsequently, the EEOC moved for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law. After the trial court denied the motions, the EEOC filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but voluntarily dismissed it on December 2, 2024. Seyfarth Shaw represented the defendant in the trial and appellate court actions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4