18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 67 that the EEOC offered adequate evidence of sex-based harassment, as testimony showed that Christian regularly followed and engaged with female employees, but never harassed any of Defendant’s male employees. Additionally, the Court found Christian’s conduct to be sufficiently severe or pervasive from both a subjective and objective perspective. On this issue, the Court pointed to several statements by the Plaintiff- Intervenors, including Vinson, saying that “she ‘just wanted to feel comfortable again” and Plaintiff-Intervenor Vaughn asserted that “Christian looked at her ‘like an animal looks at prey.’” Id. at *47-48. In response, Defendant contended that it adequately responded to the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ complaints by conducting an internal investigation and altering the affected employees’ work schedules and seating arrangements. The Court disagreed. It determined that Defendant’s remedial actions did not stop Christian’s conduct, and that even after five other employees confirmed the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims, Defendant labeled the investigation as inconclusive and took no action against Christian. In terms of Plaintiff-Intervenor Vinson’s individual claims, the Court allowed her constructive discharge claim to proceed since Vinson already established the presence of adverse working conditions and provided Defendant with sufficient notice of her claim. Defendant argued that the retaliation claim failed because the EEOC did not establish a causal connection between the Plaintiff- Intervenors’ alleged protected activity and an adverse employment action, but the Court found that such an issue of material fact was more appropriate for a jury to resolve. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. NDI Office Furniture LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118908 (N.D. Ala. June 25, 2021). The EEOC brought an action on behalf of charging parties Alicia Jenkins (“Alicia”) and her son, Arceneaux Jenkins, alleging that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it: (i) discriminated against Alicia and a group of female job applicants; (ii) engaged in a pattern or practice of failing to hire female applicants because of their sex, and (iii) retaliated against Alicia and Arceneaux. Defendant moved for summary judgment and the Court denied Defendant’s motion. The Court found that the EEOC had presented direct evidence that Defendant categorically discriminated against Alicia and women working in its facilities. Specifically, the EEOC presented evidence that when Alicia inquired about a Warehouse Coordinator position she was told that Defendant “did not hire women in the warehouse.” Id . at *5. Moreover, Defendant did not consider Alicia for the position after she inquired about it and instead it ultimately hired a man for the position. In addition to the statement that Defendant did not hire women in its warehouse, there was evidence that the manager was instructed not to hire women in the warehouse, which the Court concluded also established that Defendant had a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of sex against female applicants. Finally, relative to the retaliation claims, the Court found that the EEOC established that Defendant retaliated against Arceneaux, when he was fired after his mother had engaged in protected activity by complaining to Defendant about its discriminatory practices of not hiring women. Defendant argued that there was nothing in the record that connected Alicia’s protected activity to Defendant’s actions against Arceneaux. The Court rejected that position. It opined that the close temporal proximity between the protected conduct and an adverse employment action was sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact of a causal connection and met the minimal requirement that the protected activity and adverse action were not wholly unrelated. However, the Court determined that while Defendant asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Arceneaux, including that he had performance and attendance issues, the EEOC established a dispute of fact regarding whether Defendant’s reasons for terminating Arceneaux were pretextual. Finally, the Court concluded that the termination of Alicia’s son, Arceneaux, constituted an adverse action against Alicia. The Court ruled that the fact that Alicia’s son was fired, after she complained about Defendant’s discriminatory practices, would tend to have the effect of dissuading someone like Alicia from opposing practices that violated Title VII. As such, the Court denied Defendant’ motion on that basis as well. EEOC v. Nice Systems, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146834 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2021). The EEOC initiated an enforcement action alleging that Defendant subjected the Intervenor-Plaintiff to pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. After discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The Intervenor-Plaintiff worked for Defendant from August 2015 to March 2018 as a Sales Executive. In April 2017, she informed her direct supervisor that she was pregnant. Thereafter, the Intervenor-Plaintiff complained of the discriminatory treatment to her employer’s Director of Human Resources, Vice President of Solution Sales, and Regional Vice President. She also requested transfer to a different department, but the company was not able to