Court Dismisses EEOC's Controversial Lawsuit Challenging Standard Provisions in Separation Agreements

Earlier this year, the EEOC brought a lawsuit in federal court in Illinois claiming that the severance agreement used by a nationwide retail pharmacy in connection with the terminations of hundreds of employees unlawfully restricted the rights of these employees under Title VII to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC and to cooperate in EEOC investigations. As we noted in response to the concern that many employers shared regarding the attack on standard separation agreement provisions, the case in Illinois is just one of a number of recent suits brought by the EEOC in its attempt to challenge the enforceability of separation agreements that contain routine provisions used by many employers in their separation and settlement agreements. These provisions include nondisparagement and confidentiality clauses and promises by the employee not to bring suit against his/her employer.

In the lawsuit in Illinois federal court, the EEOC went so far as to allege that the release of all claims provision violated Title VII. The EEOC has claimed that these and other routine separation and settlement agreement provisions are an improper attempt to deter employees from cooperating with the EEOC, even though the employer’s separation agreement contained an express provision allowing employees to engage in such cooperation. The case has been closely watched because, if the EEOC should prevail, it would create great uncertainty as to what provisions can properly be included in a release of employment claims.

Good news for employers could be on the horizon however. Last Thursday, the court in the case stated it would be dismissing the EEOC’s lawsuit. Though the judge has not yet issued its decision explaining its reasoning for the dismissal, it appears that the court has rejected the EEOC’s attempt to dramatically rewrite the law governing releases of employment claims by employees. While the EEOC may appeal, and there are other similar cases pending, this decision is tentatively good news for employers who enter into separation and settlement agreements that contain provisions similar to those in the employer’s challenged separation agreement.

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.