18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 51 (i) First Circuit No reported decisions. (ii) Second Circuit EEOC v. Green Lantern Inn, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157379 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2021). The EEOC filed an enforcement action alleging that Defendant subjected female employees to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC filed a motion for sanctions for failure to respond to the Court’s previously issued discovery orders. The Court granted the motion. The Court also struck several statements from Defendant’s answer to the EEOC’s complaint, as they were “scandalous” attacks on the EEOC’s counsel. Defendant asserted that the EEOC lied on behalf of a restaurant employee and also made personal attacks on the EEOC’s counsel alleging wrongdoing, including that the case was “a disgusting fraud,” and that the allegations were a “lie” and an “attack.” Id . at *11. The Court determined that the statements made by Defendant were highly prejudicial and not capable of being supported with admissible evidence. Id . at *12. Further, the Court ruled that several of Defendant’s affirmative defenses were inapplicable and should be dismissed. Finally, the Court found that sanctions regarding the discovery requests were warranted, since Defendant deliberately delayed the discovery process. The Court determined that the an appropriate sanction would be for Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and costs associated with filing the motion for sanctions. The Court further warned that further non-compliance could result in the entry of an order stating that Defendant was aware of the sexual harassment of the female employees. For these reasons, the Court granted the EEOC’s motion for sanctions. EEOC v. Hunter-Tannersville Central School District, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230595 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2021). The EEOC filed an action alleging on behalf of the charging party, Dr. Susan Vickers, a school district superintendent, alleging that Defendant paid Dr. Vickers less and provided less favorable benefits than the previous male superintendent in violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”). Defendant filed an answer to the complaint, which asserted various affirmative defenses. The EEOC moved to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses that "any differential in pay that Plaintiff is able to identify was the result of a job-related factors other