18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

56 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition argued that the EEOC must distinguish in its initial pleading whether the alleged sexual harassment constituted a quid pro quo or a hostile work environment theory, and the Court should dismiss the opposing theory. Id . at *7. The Court disagreed. It opined that at the pleading stage, the only requirement was that EEOC’s complaint include a short and plain statement showing that Garcia was entitled to relief and which gave Defendant fair notice of the grounds and cause of action. Id . at *8. The Court ruled that the EEOC adequately alleged a quid pro quo theory because Garcia expressed to her Store Manage she was not interested in, and repeatedly rejected, his sexual propositions; the Store Manager was the highest ranking employee in her location and was her supervisor; the Store Manager threatened to terminate her; and she was ultimately terminated. Id . The Court ruled that at this point in the litigation, the EEOC’s allegations were sufficient to support a causal nexus between Garcia’s termination and her rejection of the Store Manager’s sexual propositions. Id . at *10. Defendant also contended that the EEOC failed to articulate facts sufficient to support a cause of action on the hostile work environment theory. Id . at *10-11. The Court ruled that Defendant’s argument failed because whether it "knew or should have known" was not an element when the alleged harasser was a supervisor. The EEOC’s alleged that the Store Manager was Garcia’s supervisor and was the only manager who work closely with Garcia. The Court thus held that the complaint plausibly alleged facts of a hostile work environment claim when the alleged harasser was a supervisor. Finally, as to the retaliation claims, the Court reasoned that the EEOC’s allegations that Garcia was terminated less than one month after being hired were sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement to assert a causal connection between Garcia’s protected activity and her termination. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. EEOC v. Cash Depot, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185146 (S.D. Tex. July 21, 2021). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of the charging party, Barney Galloway, alleging that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). After discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted. Galloway worked for Defendant as a field service technician for its automated teller machines. During his employment, he suffered a stroke in his home. Galloway subsequently provided Defendant with a doctor’s note restricting his driving ability. Thereafter, he requested a leave of absence. Upon his return to work, Galloway provided an updated doctor’s note approving his return, but imposing a 25-pound lifting restriction. Defendant terminated Galloway’s employment on the basis that it could not make the 25-lifting restriction accommodation. The EEOC thereafter filed an action alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate. The Court noted that it was undisputed that Galloway was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA and that Defendant terminated his employment. However, the Court looked to whether or not Galloway was able to perform the essential functions of his job with minor accommodations for the lifting restriction. Id . at *2. The EEOC argued that there were three possible reasonable accommodations, including: (i) splitting the coin removals into multiple bags, (ii) scheduling other technicians to help with heavy jobs, and (iii) giving Galloway more unpaid leave. As to the first argument, the Court found no evidence to suggest that splitting removals was a reasonable accommodation, as it could lead to theft or other dangers. The Court opined that Defendant was not required under the law to hire others to help Galloway complete his job, and that paying someone else to assist in work Defendant was already paying for was not a reasonable accommodation. Finally, the Court determined that Defendant did not have to discuss a reasonable accommodation with Galloway if one did not exist. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the EEOC’s claims. EEOC v. Danny ’ s Restaurant LLC, Case No. 16-CV-769 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 2021). The EEOC filed an action alleging that Defendants, a group of adult entertainment clubs, discriminated against Black dancers on the basis of their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for sanctions, which the Court denied. Defendants asserted that the EEOC engaged in "witness tampering" by coercing one of Defendants’ managers into signing a witness statement that was favorable to the EEOC. Id. at 2. The EEOC argued that Defendants’ motion should be dismissed as untimely. The Court agreed with the EEOC that the motion was untimely, since it was filed after the deadline for dispositive motions and "well after" Defendant was aware of the allegedly offending behavior. Id . at 3-4. The Court held that the EEOC did not do anything wrong by obtaining the affidavit. Further, the Court noted that it did not have the alleged affidavit and other pertinent filings with the motion, and that it was not the EEOC’s responsibility to put before the Court admissible evidence received from Defendant. The Court concluded that “when the sensational verbiage” was