Recent Happenings on EEOC’s Systemic Discrimination Initiative

01 March 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Carrie Hoffman

On February 22, 2012, a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.held that the EEOC must satisfy its investigation and good faith conciliation requirements under Title VII for each purported class member before bringing suit to maintain a Section 706 class action, as opposed to a pattern or practice action.  The EEOC strongly disagrees with this approach because it will place significant burdens on the EEOC’s investigators to develop class-wide evidence to bring a class action.  Practically, this may mean that the EEOC will continue to pursue on-site investigations to develop class action type evidence and subpoena broader information that most employers are willing to voluntarily (without a subpoena) provide in response to a single complainant EEOC charge.

A similar issue is pending before the Sixth Circuit in EEOC v. Cintas Corp. in which the EEOC is appealing the district court’s granting of summary judgment.  Cintas successfully defeated the EEOC’s claims asserting, like the defendant in CRT, that the EEOC failed to exhaust administrative remdies on behalf of the named plaintiffs. This CRT decision will places more stringent requirements on the EEOC to investigate something that might hinder its systemic discrimination initiatives.

The EEOC also implemented its new strategic plan for 2012 through 2016 in February.  The plan identifies stopping and remedying unlawful employment discrimination as its core mission.  It further set strategic objectives of combating discrimination through strategic enforcement and education and outreach.  In 2011, the EEOC filed 23 lawsuits alleging systemic discrimination, with each case involving 20 or more individuals.  Those cases are 14% of the EEOC’s litigation docket.  To date, the EEOC has had the most success in obtaining settlements based on allegations that employer’s attendance policies failed to accommodate disabled employees.  The most recent settlement was against Verizon in which the EEOC and Verizon settled for $20 million.

The EEOC continues to aggressively pursue systemic discrimination in the workplace.  What remains to be determined is how much work courts will make them put into these matters before the reach litigation.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services