EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

argument. It held that the EEOC had standing to pursue its claim and seek equitable relief, and specifically for back pay, regardless of whether the policies were currently enforced. The court also granted Western’s motion to reconsider concerning arguments raised in its initial Rule 50(a) motion. The court addressed Western’s arguments and denied each in full. First, Western argued “the EEOC waived its disparate impact claim to the extent it was based on the ‘full-duty policy’ by failing to include this claim in its proposed Challenge Standards” instruction. Id. at *5. The court determined its order one month before trial on the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment included both the “full-duty and maximum leave policies ‘[as] two of the thirteen discriminatory standards, criteria, or methods of administration that form the basis of the disparate impact claim.’” Id. at *6. The court also reasoned that Western was aware of the need to defend against the full-duty policy given the “significant body of evidence Western in fact prepared and marshaled to [defend against] just that.” Id. Second, Western moved to reconsider the adequacy of the evidence the EEOC presented at trial with respect to the existence of the full-duty policy and its disparate impact on qualified individuals with disabilities. Id. at *7. The court rejected Western’s request to re-weigh the evidence as the jury during trial “was attentive, engaged, and clearly thoughtful in issuing a narrow verdict.” Id. at 8. As to the disparate impact portion, the court emphasized that there was “a retread of one of Western’s rejected summary judgment arguments.” Id. at *7. Therefore, the court decided it would “not functionally reverse its own legal conclusions reached during the summary judgment phase.” Id. at *8. For the same reasons, the court denied Western’s third argument regarding statistical evidence of the 130-pound push/pull tests as a “re-tread” of an issue already decided on summary judgment. Id. Finally, the court denied Western’s argument because it “[was] merely a short summary of the arguments raised in the Standing Motion.” Id. In EEOC v. Triple-S Vida, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229285 (D.P.R. Dec. 18, 2024), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of Ivelisse Gonzalez against the defendant, alleging that it subjected her to discrimination based on her disability in violation of the ADA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgement, and the Magistrate Judge recommended denying both motions. The court thereafter adopted the recommendation. Gonzalez was hired in 2015 as an authorized representative responsible for selling life insurance, collecting payments, and spending significant time driving to meet clients. In 2018, González was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, a condition that causes chronic muscle pain, fatigue, and dizziness, which affected her ability to perform her duties. As a result, she requested a reassignment to an office position, supported by a medical recommendation from her doctor. The defendant initially denied her request for reassignment and instead offered her an ergonomic chair and suggested that she apply for other vacancies for which she was qualified. Gonzalez filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and the Puerto Rico Department of Labor, but both agencies found no probable cause for her claim. Despite this, Gonzalez continued to apply for various office positions without success. In 2020, Gonzalez applied for a customer service position, specifically requesting it as an accommodation for her disability. The defendant ultimately hired another person for the position. Eventually, the defendant moved Gonzalez to a customer service position, after she filed a second charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and nearly three years after her first request for an accommodation. Despite the reassignment, the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA. The court explained that unreasonable delays can be seen as discriminatory if they are unreasonable. The EEOC argued that the defendant could have accommodated Gonzalez sooner, as she repeatedly applied for available office positions, but the company only provided a reassignment after the EEOC intervened. The court ruled that summary judgment was not appropriate, because issues including whether Gonzalez could perform the essential functions of her desired position and whether a vacancy existed would require further briefing. The court also opined that a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant’s delay in reassigning Gonzalez was excessive and unjustified. As a result, the court ruled that whether the delay was based on valid reasons or if were part of a discriminatory pattern was a question for the jury to decide. For these reasons, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny summary judgment for both parties on the issue of whether the defendant reasonably accommodated Gonzalez. In EEOC v. Covius Services, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224471 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2024), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of Kelli Ebert, who suffered from chronic migraines and fibromyalgia, alleging that the defendant subjected her to discrimination in violation of the ADA. The EEOC asserted that Ebert’s conditions limited her major life activities when untreated, and she used prescription pain medication, including opioids, to manage the conditions. In March 2020, Ebert was referred for a position as a Non-Escrow Tax Specialist (NETS I) and disclosed her use of pain medication during her interview. Despite being rated as a potentially eligible candidate by one interviewer, the defendant did not hire Ebert. The defendant later informed her that her use of

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online