18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 55 that since the parties disputed whether Clark knew Maloney’s national origin, there was at a minimum, a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. The Court also found that there was sufficient evidence that Clark’s insulting statements were motivated by a discriminatory animus. As for sex discrimination, Defendants did not put forth any specific argument as to why Clark’s harassment of Maloney was not based on sex. Whereas the EEOC had presented evidence that Clark engaged in harassment that was sexual in nature – including calling him "gay" and "bitch," physically groping Maloney, displaying pornography in front of him, and sending a fake email to Maloney accusing him of touching himself in front of a customer – Defendants had not provided a specific argument as to why this harassment was not based on sex. Therefore, the Court opined that summary judgment was not warranted on this claim. Id . at *17. The Court also found that Maloney’s conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive. Maloney repeatedly expressed his discomfort with the harassment and requested that Clark stop calling him a "serial killer" and throwing objects at him. Id . at *26. Further, the Court noted that after Clark groped him, Maloney struggled to function, felt light-headed, sweaty, and nauseous, had to leave work early, and later filed a police report about Clark’s behavior. The Court noted that that a reasonable jury could find that the harassment was objectively severe or pervasive. The Court also determined that Defendants could be liable for the conduct because Clark was a second-level supervisor to Maloney and the highest-ranking manager at the car dealership. In addition, the Court held that the EEOC’s evidence was sufficient to support a finding of a constructive discharge, as there was genuine issue of material fact as to whether Maloney’s working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Finally, the Court found that the undisputed facts showed that Defendants operated as an integrated enterprise and it granted the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment as to that issue. Accordingly, the Court granted the EEOC’s motion and denied Defendant’s motion. EEOC v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93627 (D. Md. May 17, 2021). The EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action seeking terminated employee severance agreements in connection with its investigation into Defendant’s alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The underlying investigation related to an employee who alleged that he was terminated, but did not sign Defendant’s severance agreement that included a clause giving up rights to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in exchange for severance pay. The employee later filed a charge with the EEOC alleging racial discrimination during his employment. Defendant argued that the subpoena was in reality an attempt to continue investigating a previous request for a subpoena following a similar charge of discrimination, which had been denied. Defendant further asserted that the subpoena was overly burdensome, would require review of the files of over 2,700 employees and would take over 2,000 hours of work. The Court ordered Defendant to comply with subpoena, but provided the parties three weeks in order to reach an agreement regarding the scope of requested information. The Court determined that the EEOC’s authority pursuant to the ADEA contains no charge-based relevancy requirement. Id . at *6-7. The Court further opined that the EEOC was able to conduct investigations into potential ADEA violations at its discretion. Id . The Court found that the EEOC was expanding its charges after conducting an initial, reasonable investigation, and the fact that there was an overlap between the allegations underlying both charges appeared to stem from the fact that the EEOC learned of the potential systemic issue from the first individual charge, and not from any apparent improper purpose on the EEOC’s part to fish for information. Id . at *9-10. The Court ruled that the EEOC’s request to identity Defendant’s employees who had been provided a release containing a provision requiring them to waive their right to file an agency charge and to agree not to cooperate with any proceeding against Defendant was more than "speculatively" related to the EEOC’s authority to investigate potential ADEA violations. Id . at *14. For these reasons, the Court ordered Defendant to respond to the EEOC’s subpoena. (v) Fifth Circuit EEOC v. Al Meghani Enterprises , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224558 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2021). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of the charging party, Rebecca Garcia, alleging that Defendant subjected her to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The EEOC contended that Garcia was subjected to sexual harassment under both the quid pro quo and hostile work environment theories as well as retaliation. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Garcia was subject to harassing comments, sexually explicit text messages, and threats of termination by her store manager. Ultimately the store manager terminated Garcia’s employment. Defendant