18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 59 conduct. After the claimant complained about the alleged sexual harassment, Defendant the sent the claimant home, and she never returned to work. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that: (i) Defendant violated Title VII by subjecting the claimant to a hostile work environment; and (ii) that it violated Title VII by retaliating against her for objecting to and complaining about a sexually hostile work environment. Id. at 2. In moving to dismiss both claims, Defendant asserted that the EEOC failed to allege specific facts demonstrating a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, and failed to allege specific facts to establish a claim for retaliation under Title VII. The Court noted that the EEOC’s allegations, when viewed in their totality, were sufficient to state a viable claim for relief under Title VII. Further, the Court explained that although the EEOC did not specify in its complaint whether the supervisor was claimant’s actual supervisor, employer liability may still be established if the employer knew or should have known of the sexual harassment, and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action. Id. at 5. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claim. The Court also rejected Defendant’s argument that the complaint failed to allege specific facts to establish a claim for retaliation under Title VII. Id. at 6. It opined that protected activity includes “complaining to anyone (management, unions, other employees, or newspapers) about allegedly unlawful practices.” Id. at 6. The Court held that the EEOC properly plead a materially adverse employment action since the claimant was sent home, and that the EEOC sufficiently plead that a causal link existed between the protected activity (complaining about harassment) and the adverse employment action (being sent home). Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the retaliation claim. EEOC v. Proctor Financial, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189562 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2021). The EEOC brought an enforcement action on behalf of Angela Kellogg, a Claims Examiner, alleging that Defendant retaliated against Kellogg in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Defendant disciplined Kellogg after she filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(a). The Court found that genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to the EEOC’s claim, and therefore it denied the parties’ motions. T he Court found that there was direct and circumstantial evidence that Kellogg’s protected activity motivated Defendant to take adverse action against her. At the very least, the Court concluded that the EEOC had shown a causal connection between Kellogg’s EEOC filing and her suspension. Defendant nevertheless maintained it suspended Kellogg because of her continued resistance to adhering to the Defendant’s licensing requirements and the lack of integrity displayed by her misleading actions and statements related to the New York licensing exam. The Court agreed that this was a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason to support the adverse employment action against Kellogg. As such, the Court turned to the issue of pretext. The Court opined that the EEOC presented evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant’s reason for suspending Kellogg was a pretext for unlawful retaliation. First, for over a year and a half, the licensing requirement was in place, but nevertheless, Kellogg did not complete the New York or California exam. Yet, Defendant took no action against Kellogg or any other Claims Examiner who had not passed all the required exams during that time. It was only after Kellogg’s protected activity that Defendant decided that she was not taking the requirement seriously and thereby suspended her. In addition, a few months prior to Kellogg’s suspension, and before she filed her EEOC charge, her supervisors had rated Kellogg’s performance as "Exceeds Expectations" and "Exceptional Performance.” Id . at *23. Thus, the Court reasoned that this suggested that Kellogg’s claimed procrastination in satisfying the licensing requirement was insufficient to motivate the adverse employment action against her. Second, Claims Examiners previously failed licensing exams without reprisal or a demand to see the results. As a result, the Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Defendant’s reasons for suspending Kellogg were pretextual. The Court opined that this was also supported by the fact that email exchanges by Kellogg’s superiors that preceded the adverse employment action manifested a scheme to find "an opportunity" to discipline her. Id. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Defendant’s claim that her failure to take the New York exam was a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason to support is adverse employment action against Kellogg must be resolved by the finder of fact. For these reasons, the Court ruled that neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the EEOC’s retaliation claim. EEOC v. West Meade Place, LLP , 841 Fed. App’x 962 (6th Cir. 2021). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of the charging party, Carma Kean, alleging that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her disability in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when it terminated her employment. The District Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On the EEOC’s appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed and